Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

[Bernard Muller]

to Kapyong,

I agree with your sub-title, a sub-set of G.Matthew was used in creating the passages in the Didache. That sub-set was a series of sayings of Jesus that existed before the Gospels did.

I have no faith about sayings of Jesus floating by in the oral tradition and then being captured by a gospel author (which by the way is an apologist's argument in order to explain the gospel authors were not creating sayings). For example, "Mark" created "Hosanna", "Matthew" added on "Hosanna to the Son of David".

About "Hosanna", he following would indicate the Didachee was working from the subset of gMatthew:
Ch.10 "Hosanna to the God of David
["Hosanna to the Son of David" (Mt21:9&21)]"
"Son of David" is a favorite title in gMatthew (Mk = 3, (Q = 0), Mt = 10, Lk = 4, Jn = 0). "Matthew" had Jesus called David's Son by (only in gMatthew) blind men (9:27), a crowd (12:23), a Gentile Canaanite woman (15:22) and children in Jerusalem temple (21:15). So it is very predictable he would have Jesus also acclaimed as "Son of David" by the crowd during the all important "triumphal entry" (21:9).
Therefore, the expression "Hosanna to the ... of David" originated most likely from gMatthew (with "Matthew" getting the very odd word 'hosanna' (Hebrew for "save") from Mk 11:9). And with the wording extracted from gMatthew, "Son" was substituted by "God" in the Didache. It looks the author did not like Jesus being called "the Son of David": that would be most understandable from an Ebionite's viewpoint!

I note "Hosanna to the Son of David" is not a saying of Jesus in gMatthew but part of the narration. It is also typically Matthean. However "Hosanna to the god of David" (in a prayer) is very strange and seems to be a modification.

Cordially, Bernard

[Kapyong]

Gday Bernard,

to Kapyong,
I have no faith about sayings of Jesus floating by in the oral tradition and then being captured by a gospel author (which by the way is an apologist's argument in order to explain the gospel authors were not creating sayings).

Why so sceptical?
The evidence shows sayings and stories of Jesus existed before written Gospels did - according to the external record anyway.

It's perfectly sensible that sayings etc. existed before they were written down, then they would occasionally be mentioned in writings, then they would be put to writing. Just what we see.

For example, "Mark" created "Hosanna", "Matthew" added on "Hosanna to the Son of David".
About "Hosanna", he following would indicate the Didachee was working from the subset of gMatthew:
Ch.10 "Hosanna to the God of David
["Hosanna to the Son of David" (Mt21:9&21)]"
"Son of David" is a favorite title in gMatthew (Mk = 3, (Q = 0), Mt = 10, Lk = 4, Jn = 0). "Matthew" had Jesus called David's Son by (only in gMatthew) blind men (9:27), a crowd (12:23), a Gentile Canaanite woman (15:22) and children in Jerusalem temple (21:15). So it is very predictable he would have Jesus also acclaimed as "Son of David" by the crowd during the all important "triumphal entry" (21:9).
Therefore, the expression "Hosanna to the ... of David" originated most likely from gMatthew (with "Matthew" getting the very odd word 'hosanna' (Hebrew for "save") from Mk 11:9). And with the wording extracted from gMatthew, "Son" was substituted by "God" in the Didache. It looks the author did not like Jesus being called "the Son of David": that would be most understandable from an Ebionite's viewpoint!
I note "Hosanna to the Son of David" is not a saying of Jesus in gMatthew but part of the narration. It is also typically Matthean. However "Hosanna to the god of David" (in a prayer) is very strange and seems to be a modification.

Don't see how that's impossible under my theory. We have sayings floating around, and they differ in different MSS without being clear that one document used another.


Kapyong

[Bernard Muller]

to Kapyong,
Your list show progress:
Just two notes. I do not want to get into details about your dating, which I think is generally pushed back a bit. Of course I cannot agree with the general dating of the gospels.

50s-70s Sayings and Stories of a celestial Jesus are created (from 'visions' and the Tanakh)

Where is the evidence for that?

60-70 Hebrews, mentions Jesus, no historical detail

Hebrews also shows the past existence of an earthly human Jesus:
http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p43.htm

Cordially, Bernard

[Kapyong]

Gday,

to Kapyong,
Your list show progress:
Just two notes. I do not want to get into details about your dating, which I think is generally pushed back a bit.

I'm happy to hear any comments on my datings

50s-70s Sayings and Stories of a celestial Jesus are created (from 'visions' and the Tanakh)

Where is the evidence for that?

From Paul - he is one of a group having visions and getting revelations. The period of visions of Jesus creating stories could easily be pushed back to 30CE or earlier, and out to 90s or so. A period when there is no written dogma to copy or be regulated by.

60-70 Hebrews, mentions Jesus, no historical detail

Hebrews also shows the past existence of an earthly human Jesus:
http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p43.htm

Well, 7:14 goes on to continue :

7:15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,
7:16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.

as scripture says Jesus was :

7:17 For he testifieth, Thou [art] a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

Jesus was not thus actually born, but we know he was spawned from the line of Judah (says Carrier) only because scripture and logic says he must be.


Kapyong

[Hawthorne]

ou must know now there is more to it than the two passages you mentioned, as explained in 5.1.3 section, including this one:
In chapter 16, "Clement" quoted the LXX version of the suffering servant (Isaiah53), "as the Holy Spirit spake concerning Him [Jesus]". He kept close to the Septuagint except for his addition of three occurrences of the word "stripes" (Greek root 'plege').
a) "He is a man exposed to stripes and suffering" --> LXX (3) "he was a man in suffering"
b) "He was exposed to labour, and stripes, and affliction" --> LXX (4) "him to be in trouble, and in suffering, and in affliction"
c) "the Lord is pleased to purify Him by stripes" --> LXX (10) "The Lord also is pleased to purge him from his stroke"
'Stripes' means strokes or blows with a rod or lash (or/and resulting wounds).
The three additions of 'stripes' cannot be a coincidence and is most likely a reference to the flogging of Jesus in Mk 15:15

Isn't the word plege also the root for this:

τῶν δὲ ἐπισήμων τινὲς δημοτῶν ἀγανακτήσαντες πρὸς τὸ κακόφημον συλλαμβάνουσι τὸν ἄνθρωπον καὶ πολλαῖς αἰκίζονται πληγαῖς.

Whiston translation:
However, certain of the most eminent among the populace had great indignation at this dire cry of his, and took up the man, and gave him a great number of severe stripes

πληγαῖς is the word here, which translates as strike or blow (as from a whip for one example-per Perseus).

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... ection%3D3

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/mor ... =1#lexicon

This is from Josephus, Jewish Wars 6.5.3 (or 6.302), about Jesus, son of Ananus, a passage noted for its curious resemblance to Jesus of Nazareth's own passion story.

[andrewcriddle]

Meanwhile, another piece of evidence put forward for the Gospel being dated to the Bar Kokhba times is the abomination of the desolation :

In the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Mark, the term is used by Jesus in the Olivet discourse. In the Matthew account, Jesus is presented as quoting Daniel explicitly. In the Gospel of Mark, the phrase "spoken of by Daniel the prophet" is absent in the Codex Sinaiticus.[5]

Matthew 24:15-16 “So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains."
Mark 13:14 "But when you see the abomination of desolation standing where it ought not to be (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains."

From wiki :
[wiki]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abominatio ... ic_Gospels[/wiki]

Some scholars (e.g. Hermann Detering)

see these verses as a vaticinium ex eventu about Emperor Hadrian's attempt to install the statue of Jupiter Capitolinus on the site of the ruined Jewish Temple in Jerusalem leading to the Bar Kokhba revolt of 132-135 AD.

So, it's possible this is an internal clue that dates the Gospel to the Bar Kokhba period.


Kapyong

One should note that the evidence that Hadrian put a statue/temple of Jupiter on the Jerusalem Temple site is late and weak. Sources such as the Byzantine epitome of Cassius Dio. It is at least as likely to be a Christian legend as real history.

One issue with a Bar Kokhba date of the Gospels is that the Apocalypse of Peter is very likely dated to the Bar Kokhba period but seems to clearly know the Mark 13/Matthew 24 passage.

Andrew Criddle

[MrMacSon]

Hebrews also shows the past existence of an earthly human Jesus:
http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p43.htm

A couple of references to flesh hardly show 'past existence'.

[Kapyong]

Gday Andrew,

One issue with a Bar Kokhba date of the Gospels is that the Apocalypse of Peter is very likely dated to the Bar Kokhba period but seems to clearly know the Mark 13/Matthew 24 passage.

According to the clues I evinced I propose creation of the initial Gospel around the 120s, plenty of time for a document from 100-150, probably 135 to form.

Here is my current list with Apoc.Peter added
50s-70s Sayings and Sories of a celestial Jesus are created from (from 'visions' and the Tanakh)
60-70 Hebrews, mentions Jesus, very little historical detail
80-90 Clement, knows two sayings of Jesus
90-100 Didache, knows the Lord's prayer
100-110 Barnabas, knows a few stories about Jesus
120 Proposed creation of the first Gospel G.Mark
110-130 Ignatius, knows some stories of Jesus
130s? Papias' clues of written Gospels come from Eusebius
135? Apocalypse of Peter knows Mark/Matthew
140s? Marcion's version of Luke
140s Epistles of the Apostles talks about writing Gospels
138-161 Aristides mentions an un-named singular Gospel that is 'recently preached'
150s Justin mentions memoirs called Gospels - no names of authors
140-160 Ptolemy knows G.John by text
150-200 Acts of Peter knows a written Gospel
170 Heracleon knows G.John by text
170-200 The Treatise on the Resurrection knows a written Gospel
170s The diaTessaron has four (un-named?) Gospels
180s Irenaeus quotes four Gospels by name

The Apocalypse of Peter could easily have picked up a phrase from G.Mark that was 15 years or so earlier.

Kapyong

[MrMacSon]

And GMark was not the only early Christian work "Clement" knew about: he named Paul twice & was well aware of some of his epistles (ch.5,47). Also "Clement" appears to have been familiar with 'Hebrews' (as in ch.36), the later using out-of-context quotes in order to support the author's agenda (as "Clement" appears to have done in ch.46!).

Absolutely - Clement knew Paul for sure, and knew Hebrews maybe.

But he didn't know the Gospels - he knew early sayings of Jesus.

Clement knew of Paul? or, Clement repeated things from the Pauline epistles?

6.The Didache, dependency and dating:

6.1 Dependency on GMatthew (or, most likely, a subset of it):

Ch.8 "And do not pray as the hypocrites, but [what follows is according to Mt6:9-13, with minor variations] as the Lord commanded in his Gospel, pray thus:

• "Our Father, who art in Heaven, hallowed be thy Name, thy Kingdom come, thy will be done, as in Heaven so also upon earth; give us to-day our daily bread, and forgive us our debt as we forgive our debtors, and lead us not into trial, but deliver us from the Evil One

[above words of prayer in bold are specific to GMatthew and not found in Luke's version (11:2-4)]

for Thine is the power and the glory for ever
[those same words appear in chapter 10 and possibly (before an interpolation) also in chapter 9. This expression is therefore typical of the Didache. However, some ancient manuscripts of GMatthew show the same words (plus "Thine is the Kingdom and power" &, at the very end, "Amen") at the end of the prayer.

What does that suggest?
GMatthew prayer was first, then copied in the Didache with the addition put at the end, then later copyist(s) "harmonized" the gospel according to the Didache version (and then added up some more!)]."

Ch.11 "And concerning the Apostles and Prophets, act thus according to the ordinance of the Gospel [what follows is an elaboration of Mt10:8b-14] ..."

I agree with your sub-title, a sub-set of G.Matthew was used in creating the passages in the Didache. That sub-set was a series of sayings of Jesus that existed before the Gospels did.

Clement mentioned is a classic example - he quotes a tiny number of sayings of the Lord, along with about 100 references to the wise writing of Paul; and about another hundred to the scriptures the Tanakh.

"about 100 references to the 'wise writing of Paul' " -

• a. references to? or
  b. quotes from? ; or
  c. a combination of both?

And the Didache simply records some of those pre-Gospel sayings.

Of course a prayer from Jesus would evolve to fill the mouth of Jesus - and the Lord's Prayer is one of the most variant of all parts of the Gospel - suggesting it was most likely an early layer and had more time to evolve and grow into variants.

The stages of growth of the Gospels look like so :

• 1. 70CE and after - Sayings and Stories of Jesus arise (from the Tanakh and from 'visions')
  2. 80-120CE Some early works start quoting variants of those sayings
  e.g. Hebrews, Barnabas, the Didache, Clement and more
  3. 130 or so - first appearances of written Gospels appear
  4. 140-180 - Gospel grow to four and become named
  

That's what the external evidence shows.

Once again I think your evidence for an early Gospel dependence on the Didache is misplaced. It is not good evidence of early Gospel dating at all.

[toejam]

Carrier just wrote a 7,000 word rebuttal to a Christian fundamentalist amazon.com review. He's really hitting the big time now