Scholar: Jesus Thought He was the Messiah, but Not God

[technomage]

I'd be curious to know the basis for …

While we do have (probably) some authentic statements …​

versus, e.g., …

While we may have (possibly) some authentic statements …​

We have at least three separate, independent sources for statements for Jesus: the Synoptics, the Johanine, and the Thomasine traditions. If a statement appears in all three, that's the most certainty we can have that a statement is authentic. (There may be other independent traditions, but I generally view the later ones as less reliable.)

Beyond that, however, both statements register a degree of uncertainty. Connotatively, the second seems a little less certain, but to me, the two statements are pretty interchangeable.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

We have at least three separate, independent sources for statements for Jesus: the Synoptics, the Johanine, and the Thomasine traditions. If a statement appears in all three, that's the most certainty we can have that a statement is authentic. (There may be other independent traditions, but I generally view the later ones as less reliable.)

Could you suggest a statement fount in Thomas and John that are independent of "Q"?

Beyond that, however, both statements register a degree of uncertainty. Connotatively, the second seems a little less certain, but to me, the two statements are pretty interchangeable.

I do not find them to be at all interchangeable.

 

[technomage]

Could you suggest a statement fount in Thomas and John that are independent of "Q"?

I don't accept Q as a viable hypothesis. Occam's Razor would tend to lend credence to the concept that either Luke or Matthew copied directly from the other. The only thing I can think of that is definitely attested in all three traditions is the story of the 100 sheep, one of whim goes astray, but that's also attested in Luke. There are some other parallels, but all I can think of off the top of my head go back to the Synoptics.

I do not find them to be at all interchangeable.

There's room for connotative disagreement there.

 

[outhouse]

We have at least three separate, independent sources for statements for Jesus: the Synoptics, the Johanine, and the Thomasine traditions. If a statement appears in all three, that's the most certainty we can have that a statement is authentic. (There may be other independent traditions, but I generally view the later ones as less reliable.)

Beyond that, however, both statements register a degree of uncertainty. Connotatively, the second seems a little less certain, but to me, the two statements are pretty interchangeable.

Maybe authentically attributed to a Jesus character, but there is simply no real link to Jesus beyond "hope".


It could very well have originated with JtB or any other tyipcal Jewish parables

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I don't accept Q as a viable hypothesis.

That seems harsh.

First …

The Q source (also Q document, Q Gospel, Q Sayings Gospel, or Q from German: Quelle, meaning "source") is a hypothetical written collection of sayings (logia) of Jesus defined as the "common" material found in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke but not in their other written source, the Gospel of Mark. According to this hypothesis, this material was drawn from the Oral Tradition of the Early Church.

Along with Markan priority, Q was hypothesized by 1900, and it is one of the foundations of most modern gospel scholarship.[1] B. H. Streeter formulated a widely accepted view of Q: that it was a written document (not an oral tradition) composed in Greek; that almost all of its contents appear in Matthew, in Luke, or in both; and that Luke more often preserves the original order of the text than Matthew. In the two-source hypothesis, Matthew and Luke both used Mark and Q as sources. Some scholars have postulated that Q is actually a plurality of sources, some written and some oral. Others have attempted to determine the stages in which Q was composed.

- Wiki

To be honest, I've always been a bit of a Goodacre/Farrer fan, but not being convinced of "Q" seems to me far different that claiming that much (if not most) modern scholarship is based on something that these scholars do not recognize as being unviable.

 

[technomage]

Maybe authentically attributed to a Jesus character, but there is simply no real link to Jesus beyond "hope".

That's a higher level of skepticism than is applied to Socrates, or Pythagoras. I can't see the sense in applying different levels of skepticism.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

There's room for connotative disagreement there.

Perhaps we can talk about equating "probably" and "possibly" in some other forum - particularly in light of your Occam's Razor …

 

[technomage]

That seems harsh.

Meh. Occam's razor promises a _close_ shave, but not necessarily a _smooth_ one.

First …To be honest, I've always been a bit of a Goodacre/Farrer fan, but not being convinced of "Q" seems to me far different that claiming that much (if not most) modern scholarship is based on something that these scholars do not recognize as being unviable.

I'm not settled on which non-Q hypothesis has the greater weight (Farrer or Wilke), but either of these hypotheses eliminates the need for Q. I accept Marcan priority without reservation--that's where the evidence points. But I don't see the need to hypothesize documents for which we have no survivals without some pretty overwhelming evidence.

 

[outhouse]

That's a higher level of skepticism than is applied to Socrates, or Pythagoras. I can't see the sense in applying different levels of skepticism.

I dont agree.

Again, since it is reasonble to think JtB taught Jesus, can you confirm these were also not JtB parables?

Nor can we confirm they are nothing but parables attributes to him, by people far removed from the events who used oral traditions that grew over decades of use.


I have never denied my minimalism and higher skepticism.

 

[technomage]

I dont agree.

Again, since it is reasonble to think JtB taught Jesus, can you confirm these were also not JtB parables?

Nor can we confirm they are nothing but parables attributes to him, by people far removed from the events who used oral traditions that grew over decades of use.

The triple attestations removes _some_ of this, especially since the three communities seem to have originated from different locations (the Synoptics in Antioch, the Johannine possibly from Ephesus, the Thomasine in Alexandria). We can see the development of oral tradition in the Synoptics--unfortunately, since the Johannine only had one Gospel and the Thomasine only one book at all), we don't have as rich a comparative corpus in these traditions.

I have never denied my minimalism and higher skepticism.

Again, I can't see the logic of assigning a different level of skepticism for these texts than is applied to other texts. Sauce for the goose, and all that....

 

[Sleeppy]

Jesus was (reported to be) flesh and blood-- with limited power. More than anything, Jesus accepted (at least a majority of) the authority in both written and oral history, being passed down by the Jewish forefathers.

The men who are dead were of God; but God is in all creation. Creation says, "I will be what I will be," doesn't it?

 

[outhouse]

That's a higher level of skepticism than is applied to Socrates, or Pythagoras. I can't see the sense in applying different levels of skepticism.

Can I say politely I think your in error here.


Pythagoras - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Most of the information about Pythagoras was written down centuries after he lived, so very little reliable information is known about him.


I think it is safe to say his historicity has never been in question and comparing him to Jesus comes close to a straw man due to the amount of historicity he actually has. Heck we even know what he looked like in detail.

Socrates - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The ambiguity and lack of reliability serves as the modern basis of criticism—that it is nearly impossible to know the real Socrates.

 

[Sleeppy]

This idea that you'll be able to accurately catalogue all these people from the distant past, is retarded-- historians, of all people should know this.

 

[outhouse]

This idea that you'll be able to accurately catalogue all these people from the distant past, is retarded-- historians, of all people should know this.

They do.


The key here is trying to determine plausibility to diferent aspects of history, mythology, fiction, allegory, poem, song, and metaphors for starters.

 

[Sleeppy]

They do.


The key here is trying to determine plausibility to diferent aspects of history, mythology, fiction, allegory, poem, song, and metaphors for starters.

These methods for determining plausibility are built on previous determinations of plausibility. What are the margins for error?

 

[technomage]

Can I say politely I think your in error here.

Aww, come on. Not even one insult? I'm beginning to think you don't love me anymore.

Pythagoras - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Most of the information about Pythagoras was written down centuries after he lived, so very little reliable information is known about him.

I'm quite aware of the distinction here. My point is that the general standard of historicity is maintained: recent writings (within a century) are more reliable than later writings (the "centuries" you cite above).

I think it is safe to say his historicity has never been in question and comparing him to Jesus comes close to a straw man due to the amount of historicity he actually has. Heck we even know what he looked like in detail.

Does this apply to Pythagoras or Socrates?

Socrates - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The ambiguity and lack of reliability serves as the modern basis of criticism—that it is nearly impossible to know the real Socrates.

The other reason it is "nearly impossible" is that Plato spent a lot of time and ink putting words in his mouth.

 

[outhouse]

These methods for determining plausibility are built on previous determinations of plausibility. What are the margins for error?

Quite large.

Opinions vary.


They claim baptismby John and crucifixion are fact.

After that there are different levels of plausibility based on who's scholarships you follow.


It i sthe best its going to get based on our very limited information on the mans actual life.

 

[Nakosis]

I tend to take the position that it doesn't matter whether Jesus was a historical figure or not. Obviously though a point that matters to Christians.

So Jesus need not be any more historical then the Hare in the story of the Hare and the Tortoise. The story.. i.e. The Gospels exist. So accepting that the story exists, one can make some determination about the character of Jesus. Like one would the character of Scrooge in the story "A Christmas Carol".

So in the spirit of this topic, is it necessary that one accept the historical "fact" of the person of Jesus?

I kind of think in general it is unnecessary for any non-Christian to accept a historical Jesus. Christians accept it because of religious necessity. Outside of that, I don't see much point.

 

[outhouse]

Aww, come on. Not even one insult? I'm beginning to think you don't love me anymore.

No man, my ignore list is way too large lol.

I'm quite aware of the distinction here. My point is that the general standard of historicity is maintained: recent writings (within a century) are more reliable than later writings (the "centuries" you cite above).

I think there is a larger need for rhetoric and fiction with a divine character, that cannot be applied to either men you mentioned.

I dont think we can just strip away known mythology and say, there you have it! and there it is!

Does this apply to Pythagoras or Socrates?

Both.

The other reason it is "nearly impossible" is that Plato spent a lot of time and ink putting words in his mouth.

Understood.


My only point is Q or Thomas could very well be a local Galilean collection of Jewish parables Jesus might have or might not have taught.

I still think many originated with John, and Jesus took over his movement and teachings due to Johns sudden death.

 

[technomage]

So in the spirit of this topic, is it necessary that one accept the historical "fact" of the person of Jesus?

Nope. But I am just as wary of unwarranted skepticism as I am of overly credulous belief.

I like facts. And though the historicity of Jesus is (to me) a trivial issue, it's a fun issue.