Flavius Josephus About Jesus?

[Oberon]

(Grant appeals to Helmut Koester, who is generally regarded as the leading authority on the subject of the Fathers’ dependence on oral tradition rather than on written Gospels: see his Ancient Christian Gospels, p.14-20.)

Again, this statement is incorrect. Koester, as I said, is a well-known and excellent scholar. He is by no means, however, considered "the leading authority on the subject of the Fathers’ dependence on oral tradition." He is one several scholars who argues this, but more experts argue against him. It is a moot point, however, as
1. There are several other early early references to the gospels, Matthew and Luke using Mark prior to 1 Clement was written
2. If Koester's contention is correct, it means that the oral Jesus tradition did, in the first place exist (as you denied), and also that it was controlled enough to retain several sayings found in 1 Clement, 60+ years after Jesus died, which are found in the synoptics independently of clement. It also means we can add 1 Clement to our independent sources attesting to Jesus.

Clement's knowledge of any of the Gospels has never been satisfactorily demonstrated.

You say this without having ever done the research. I cited scholarship going back a hundred years, as well as a number of more recent studies which disagree.

It became common practice to attribute all manner of sayings and teachings to a Jesus towards the end of the first century. Thomas is an example of a sayings Gospel that simply consists of a list of over a hundred teachings and sayings, all beginning with "Jesus said."

And Thomas is either dependent on the synoptics for much of his sayings, or is another independent (and some argue earlier, though probably more argue later) collection of Jesus' sayings. It is quite clear, however, that this is the same Jesus. Moreover, numerous sayings in Thomas have parallels elsewhere. Thomas is, if anything, another source for understanding Jesus. Koester, and his students, for example, use Thomas as an early and independent sources for Jesus' teachings.

Your methodology is not only flawed, it is the reverse of what is perhaps the most important tool of historical study of any subject: when you have multiple independent sources for a historical figure, you have MORE evidence, not less.

You argue that sayings were simply "attributed" to Jesus all over the place. And in part this is no doubt true. But they were all based on a single figure, identified as being the same in all the sources. Unlike figures such as Antiphon, who not only have a variety of vastly different references about and/or texts attributed to them (and in the case of Antiphon, are still considered by most to be the same person) our independent sources not only show extensive agreement, but they are all attributed to one Jesus Christ, and there is no indication anywhere that there were multiple such teachers/prophets who were eventually conflated.

 

[dogsgod]

Thomas branched off from another list of sayings and teachings, an early form of a Q collection of which the Gospels are dependent upon for many of its teachings.

 

[Oberon]

Thomas branched off from another list of sayings and teachings, an early form of a Q collection of which the Gospels are dependent upon for many of its teachings.

I know all about Thomas and Q. What exactly Thomas is and what its sources are have by no means been decided in scholarship. Koester and his students (as well as others) all argue that Thomas is independent of Q and earlier than the other gospels. Most argue that it was late, but again there is a division among experts as to whether Thomas is independent of the synoptics or used them.

The point, however, is that Thomas also attributes saying to the same Jesus everyone else does. There is no evidence anywhere of many sages or teachers who eventually were conflated. From Paul onwards, the it is all the same Jesus Christ.

You seem to think that Q was just a collection of sayings which were incorporated into the gospels and attributed to Jesus. This isn't the case. The Q sayings also identify the same Jesus, as does Thomas.

 

[dogsgod]

Thomas is not entirely independent of Q, some of the sayings are identical. Between Q and Thomas there is a wide variety of sayings and teachings, from secular, to Greek cynicism, Jewish, and possibly a far eastern influence in some of Thomas. The latest of the Q sayings are religious in nature wherein we can read of rejection due to the harsh punishments for those that have refused to believe. All of which are contributed to a Jesus.

 

[dogsgod]

In the gospels much of what Jesus says is from the OT if not from Q.

 

[Oberon]

Thomas is not entirely independent of Q, some of the sayings are identical.

Wow. I can't believe even you would make this comment. If two eyewitnesses to an event said the same thing to police, would one be dependent on the other simply because their accounts agree? If two sayings sources have Jesus say similar or identical things, this doesn't mean they are dependent on each other. Jesus could have actually said these things, and they began part of the oral tradition, passed on both to the author(s) of Q and to Thomas.

Between Q and Thomas there is a wide variety of sayings and teachings, from secular, to Greek cynicism, Jewish, and possibly a far eastern influence in some of Thomas.

I doubt you have studied enough of either Q or Jewish or Greek cynicism to make this evaluation. Also, Coptic thomas is a later version of an earlier greek version. Finally, Jesus himself may show all of the above chacteristics.

[/QUOTE]The latest of the Q sayings are religious in nature wherein we can read of rejection due to the harsh punishments for those that have refused to believe. All of which are contributed to a Jesus.[/quote]

Point?

In the gospels much of what Jesus says is from the OT if not from Q.

Jesus was a first century Jew. Of course he quoted scripture, both in Q and elsewhere.

 

[dogsgod]

Again, Occam's razor, either a number of identical teachings were simply copied and then additional teachings were added to these lists independent of one another which would explain their similarities and their differences, or these identical teachings were uttered by one person, passed on for several decades orally, and then independently written down by different collectors, in different languages, virtually word for word, as well as other teachings that were different.

 

[Oberon]

Again, Occam's razor, either a number of identical teachings were simply copied and then additional teachings were added to these lists independent of one another which would explain their similarities and their differences, or these identical teachings were uttered by one person, passed on for several decades orally, and then independently written down by different collectors, in different languages, virtually word for word, as well as other teachings that were different.

First, verbatim transmission far more reliable than that of the gospels has been documented. Second, Occam's Razor:

We have numerous sources which all attribute sayings and deeds to a single person, Jesus Christ. These sayings and events differ in many ways, but are also similar in even more ways. Simplest solution: A single person named Jesus (who obtained the title Christ) taught followers, and these followers passed on his teachings which were in a large part retained, although many differences are present and the tradition was added to.

 

[logician]

"I'm not convinced, for example, that ancient witnesses could have misunderstood a resurrection or healing miracles."

Except there is not one eyewitness to anything that the supposed Jesus did that actually wrote about it.

 

[dogsgod]

"I'm not convinced, for example, that ancient witnesses could have misunderstood a resurrection or healing miracles."

Except there is not one eyewitness to anything that the supposed Jesus did that actually wrote about it.

But that's just a minor detail in the big scheme of things.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

"I'm not convinced, for example, that ancient witnesses could have misunderstood a resurrection or healing miracles."

Except there is not one eyewitness to anything that the supposed Jesus did that actually wrote about it.

Duh...

 

[Dirty Penguin]

"I'm not convinced, for example, that ancient witnesses could have misunderstood a resurrection or healing miracles."

I'm convinced these arguments, from both sides, are just running in circles....

 

[dogsgod]

There's a couple of possibilities for an historical Jesus, but I'm not convinced that the one we literally read of in the Gospels is one of them.

 

[logician]

There's a couple of possibilities for an historical Jesus, but I'm not convinced that the one we literally read of in the Gospels is one of them.

Do you mean a Jesus upon which the Xian religion is based? Actually, the XIan religion sprang from Paul(whoever he was), and he had no knowledge whatsoever and did not base his teachings from an earthly Jesus.

 

[dogsgod]

Do you mean a Jesus upon which the Xian religion is based? Actually, the XIan religion sprang from Paul(whoever he was), and he had no knowledge whatsoever and did not base his teachings from an earthly Jesus.

But he may have, one from possibly 100BCE. Earliest Christianity

 

[logician]

But he may have, one from possibly 100BCE. Earliest Christianity

But in the books of the NT actually attributable to Paul he basically is dead silent about an earthly Jesus, references none of his supposed teachings, prefering instead a spiritual Christ. If indeed he was basing his religion upon some man, he sure went out of his way to avoid mentioning him.

 

[dogsgod]

But in the books of the NT actually attributable to Paul he basically is dead silent about an earthly Jesus, references none of his supposed teachings, prefering instead a spiritual Christ. If indeed he was basing his religion upon some man, he sure went out of his way to avoid mentioning him.

He was basing his religion on a spiritual Christ, but there may have been a figure from a very distant past that he may have been alluding to when claiming things were according to scripture. The only things people witnessed in Paul's time were visions of a risen Christ, Paul makes no claim of anyone witnessing a crucifixion, such things as that were known according to scripture, as in ancient Jewish scripture.

 

[dogsgod]

Christ died, was buried and raised according to scripture, but his appearances were witnessed by people living in Paul's time.



1 Corinthians 153For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.



It's possible that this figure of ancient scripture is also mythical, he may have been based on an historical figure, or Paul may have believed that he was historical.

 

[dogsgod]

Fom the link I provided:

Alvar Ellegård, Emeritus Professor of English in the University of Göteborg, Sweden, has stressed the significance of these facts in his latest book, Jesus One Hundred Years Before Christ (London: Century, 1999). He argues that what was known of the person named as 'Jesus' in the Easter visions was, prior to those visions, some traditions about the Teacher of Righteousness who figures in Dead Sea scrolls written ca. 100 B.C. as a revered leader (not the Messiah, and not a supernatural personage) to whom God had made known all the mysteries of the prophets, and who had been severely persecuted. Whether he was an actual historical figure or largely a construction to give substance to his followers' conception of the founder of their movement cannot now be determined. In any case, the Scrolls show that his memory was still treasured a century or more after his presumed death. What his followers thought they knew about him was that he had lived long ago and had been maltreated and persecuted probably dying as a martyr. It would be natural for those who knew, even indirectly, of what is said of him in, for instance, the Qumran Habakkuk commentary, to assume that the persecution eventually led to his martyrdom. The Scrolls do not name him -- they avoid actually naming the sectarian personages (including the Teacher's chief enemies) whom they mention but, as we saw, 'Jesus' would be an appropriate name to give to someone of such religious importance. Ellegård's case is that visions of the Teacher convinced Paul and others that he was more than what he appeared to have been on Earth in the past, and was in fact a heavenly figure -- an idea reinforced by' the Wisdom literature which told of a supernatural personage who had sought an abode on Earth, and, rejected, had returned to heaven. The visions gave an assurance that this heavenly figure was now preparing to descend to Earth for the last Judgement.

 

[Oberon]

Fom the link I provided:

Alvar Ellegård, Emeritus Professor of English

Let's stop right there.