HaCKeRz Kr0nlcKLeZ 1/HaCKeRz Kr0nlcKLeZ.iso/chibacity/jesus.arj/JESUS.TXT

Text File | 1992-08-24 | 20.4 KB | 439 lines

           The History of Jesus: Tracking down the Son of God. (?)



My thanks to Mr. Kiledal for his response to my post.  Before I proceed to
utterly and conclusively destroy his assertions :), I need to say a few things.
(Even before that:  at the request of Mr. Salem I have reset all
followups to EXclude talk.origins.  Please respect this request.)

1)  I apologize if my original post was perceived as being hostile to
Christianity.  I really did not have this intent.  My original correspondent
also commented on the negativity of the post and I neglected to address this
in reposting it.  This series of posts hopefully will correct the problem.
I am not a Christian, but I regard myself as sympathetic to Christianity.
As I mentioned in a post to Mr. Holden, I will not participate in name-calling.
If the conversation degenerates into a flame war, I will terminate it.

2)  I have two purposes in responding to Mr. Kiledal.
The first is to attempt to loosen the ties that bind Christianity to a
literal interpretation of the Bible, that (as Mr. Salem argues) leads to
such false credos as Creationism.  Christianity needs to lighten up a bit.
It seems clear that Mr. Kiledal is unaware of modern biblical
research, and this is probably the case with the majority of Xtians.
Sunday school is a lousy place to learn about the Bible.

The second is to point out to Evolutionists an important line of argument
that perhaps is underestimated.  Creationists are always on the offensive
in arguing against the validity of evolution.  Evolutionists should also
carry the battle into the enemy's camp by attacking the literal interpretation
of the Bible by Creationists, citing not only the inerrencies of and historical
questions about the OT, but also that of the New Testament, which the Xtians
claim as their very own.  And they can do it by utilizing modern biblical
textual/form/source/critical/redaction/archaeological research.

3)  Concerning Sources...ah, Sources...
   a)  Mr. Kiledal questions my use of primary sources.  *Sigh*.  In my post, I
went far out of my way to give *explicit* references to *classical*, *primary*
authors, that I *have* *read* *myself*, and that are *independent* of
Christian influence.  I will repeat these references in the conclusion to
my series of posts.  I have read the NT, but in English only.  I assert that
it is impossible to make any kind of cogent study of the NT without a
commanding knowledge of several dialects of Greek and Hebrew.  Even in English
it is possible to notice the disparities between Gen. 1 & 2, but it is not so
clear cut in the case of the NT.  Therefore the sources chosen in this kind
of an argument are of prime importance...

   b)  I am not a biblical scholar.  In looking at this
question of the historicity of Jesus, I have attempted to use the most
up to date sources I could find.  I am aware that there are plenty of books
out there that Mr. Kiledal could cite contradicting my own.  I have
made the decision that these books are in error, for the reason that they
conform to the Traditional Interpretation of the New Testament, which
has the deliberate agenda of increasing the authority of the NT writings.
The Traditional Interpretation is a creation of the early Church Fathers,
and has been refuted so abundantly by modern research as to be almost a
laughingstock.  Citing such authors is comparable to quoting Lamarck and
Darwin in a critique of modern evolutionary theory.  I believe that this
decision of mine is a valid and reasonable one.  Comments from experts *please*?
I have also not used any sensational, GeeWhiz sorts of books as sources.
All my sources are listed in the Conclusion to my series of posts.

   c)  Mr. Kiledal's sources.
Mr. Kiledal mentions four sources in his post:
    The Bible
    Commentary by editors of his bible
    Ireneaus
    Tertullian
*Sigh*.  Having chided me about using primary sources, Mr. Kiledal blithely
turns around and cites 2nd and 3rd century Church Fathers as if this
strengthens his statements!!
Mr. Kiledal, these people are *not* reliable sources as to
who wrote the Bible!  They *are* *the* *ones* who created the Traditional
Interpretation in *the* *first *place*!  If you are going to argue about the
veracity of Biblical accounts, you *must* argue from internal evidence in
the Bible itself and from contemporaenous documentary and archaeological
evidence (which has been the entire thrust of modern Biblical scholarly
research), *not* from fifth-handed biased sources like the early Church
Fathers, who came along way after the fact.  My quotes in the following
posts will mention these people to hammer the point home.
Chapter 9, The Canonical Problem of the Four Gospels, in [5], has an excellent
introduction to historical attempts at "harmonization" of the Four Gospels.
I *highly* recommend it to Mr. Kiledal for his own edification.


The following posts will deal with each of the Gospels, with quotes
included from each of my sources.





          The Historical Jesus II:  Was Mark an Eyewitness?


This is the second in a series of posts examining the historicity of
Jesus, specifically whether the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses.
It consists of quotes from references (in brackets) listed in the
concluding post.

Here is a simple diagram from [1](78) of The Four Source Theory tree:
    SMt  Mk  Q       SLk
      \  |\  / \     /
       \ | /\   \   /
        \|/   \  \ /
         |      \|/
         Mt      Lk
It is a model (there are variants) of the sources used by the
Synoptic Gospels in compiling their books.

[1](p105)
    In the second century, apologetic motives led the church
wherever possible to ascribe its gospels to apostolic authorship.
...The very attempt to connect the gospel with an apostle suggests 2nd
cent. apologetic, ... [and] It contradicts almost all that modern critical
scholarship has established with regard to Mark.  Form criticism has
demonstrated that Mark's gospel is the end-result of process of tradition
passing through the successive phases of Palestinian and Hellenistic
Christianity, not a direct record of immediate eyewitness.
...a date c. 68 would be acceptable

[2](137)
    ...Therefore the Mark of Jerusalem was not the author of the
Gospel of Mark, but an otherwise unknown Christian of the second generation,
who perhaps bore the name of Mark.
... written shortly before A.D. 70 somewhere in the domain of Hellenistic
Christianity.

[3](134)
    The work was handed down anonymously, and it is ecclesiastical
tradition that names Mark as the author.  the earliest evidence for this
is found in the so-called Papias fragment...According to this fragment,
Mark was the companion and interpreter of Peter ... This statement is
historically worthless.
...written between A.D. 67 and 69.

[4](98)
    It would be inadequate and inappropriate, however, to assume
that Mark was written as a historical archive when the eyewitness
generation of Jesus's followers was about to die off.

[5]
    [Childs is very difficult to get a simple answer out of,
because he is not interested with historical questions of authorship.
He views these as being too reductionistic.  There is no specific discussion
of the dates/authorship of Mark that I could find]



     The Historical Jesus III:  Was Matthew an Eyewitness?


This is the third in a series of posts examining the historicity of
Jesus, specifically whether the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses.
It consists of quotes from references (in brackets) listed in the
concluding post.

[1](113)
    Like the other gospels Mt is anonymous. ...The use of sources
(Mk, Q, Special Mt material) precludes apostolic authorship or eyewitness.
The name Matthew was attached to Mt for apologetic reasons in the second
century.
...A date between 70 and 110 is required: perhaps about 85.

[2](143)
    The Gospel of Matthew itself clearly contradicts the claim that
its author had been an eyewitness of the ministry of Jesus. ... The use
and reinterpretation of sources which lay before the evangelist, as well
as the linguistic form of his work, thus lead to the compelling conclusion
that the author could not have come from among the circle of the twelve.
...can be dated around A.D. 90

[3](152)
    We can therefore understand Papias' statement only against the
background of a period in which efforts were being made to find guarantees
for the Church's tradition. ...The author in fact remains completely
unknown to us.  ... He was certainly not an eye-witness of the life of Jesus.
...could have been written in the 80's

[4](128)
    ...A likely date for the writing of Matthew would be, therefore,
about 90 to 95. ... To settle on so late a date as this virtually excludes
the disciple Matthew from consideration as the author. ...[and] at best
was reporting at secondhand the recollections of an apostle.

[5](61)
    First, the painstaking analysis of several generations of source
critics has made out a very convincing case for seeing Matthew as
dependent upon a collection of sources - to what extent oral or written
remains debatable - which includes Mark, Q, and a special source...
The great contribution of recent redactional studies has been in the
discovery of the...shaping of Matthew's Gospel by an editor...



Subject: The Historical Jesus IV:   Was Luke an Eyewitness?


This is the fourth in a series of posts examining the historicity of
Jesus, specifically whether the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses.
It consists of quotes from references (in brackets) listed in the
concluding post.

[1](119)
    Luke is the only evangelist who directly addresses his reader(s)
as an author (Lk 1:1-4) ... Luke distinguishes himself from the
eyewitnesses ... Lk is definitely a sub-apostolic work.
... c.90 would be a good date.

[2](151)
    The name of the author is nowhere named in the Lukan two volumes.
...The ancient church tradition begins with the statement of Irenaeus...
...Probably this tradition, which relates Luke to Paul and thereby brings
the third Gospel at least indirectly in relation to an apostle, is
somewhat older than Irenaeus. ...The data from the ancient church tradition
thus receives no support from an investigation of the Gospel of Luke and Acts.
...we can say with confidence that the Gospel Luke originated after Mark.
...is to be dated about A.D. 90

[3](160)
    Once again we have to begin by noting that the work is anonymous.
...The earliest reference is found in Irenaeus ...The time of writing was
probably in the third Christian generation, round about the year A.D. 90

[4](174)
    ...All that can be said is that the author of Acts may have utilized
as one of his sources a travel account concerning Paul... he stands with
the other two synoptics, since the basic outline he follows derives from
Mark, with supplemental material from Q, in addition to his own...

[5](101)
    ...Largely because of the delay in the expected return of Christ
in the parousia, Luke abandoned the eschatological hope of the early
Christians and replaced it with a new theory of history in order to
accommodate the changing historical situation...



     The Historical Jesus V:    Was John an Eyewitness?


This is the fifth in a series of posts examining the historicity of
Jesus, specifically whether the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses.
It consists of quotes from references (in brackets) listed in the
concluding post.

John is perhaps the most interesting of the Gospels because he appears
to be independent of the Synoptic Gospels, and because the work has
a remarkable unity of style that bespeaks a single author, or possibly
a group of closely allied authors (the Johannine school).

Also, the arguments concerning how much redaction has occurred or the use
of sources by John are still going on.  It is impossible for me here to
comment about this, except to include quotes concerning Chapter 21,
as this directly impinges on the authorship/eyewitness question.

The relative prominance of Greek philosophy vs. Jewish Wisdom tradition
vs. Egyptian vs. Qumranian influences in John's thought can only be hinted
at here.  The current consensus appears to downplay the role of Greek philosophy
in favor of the others.  The Epistles of John appear to be addressing
heretical teachings of a group called the Docetics (allied to Gnosticism)
but John itself is probably not doing so.  Other people probably have
more recent information on this fascinating topic.

[1](177)
    Since the evangelist stands at the end of a process of tradition,
Palestinian, Hellenistic, and Jewish-heterodox-Baptist, it is impossible to
accept the traditional (Irenaeus) ascription of this gospel to John bar
Zebedee. ... The gospel remains anonymous.  The traditional authorship is
once more a second century attempt the secure apostolic authorship for a
work it wanted to include in the Canon.
...Chapter 21 is widely considered to be a later addition.  The style,
vocabulary and content are thoroughly Johannine, but 20:30f looks like the
concluding summary of the gospel.  Jn 21 begins a completely new series
of resurrection narratives located in Galilee and unrelated to the Jerusalem
series in ch.20.  At the very least, 21:214 is an editorial addition.  More
likely it indicates that ch. 21 as a whole is an appendix added by the
Johannine school.  Its purpose is to identify the beloved disciple with
the writer of the gospel.
...a date 90-100 still the most probable...

[2](174)
    That the Gospel received yet another, final editing is clear from
the duplicated conclusion (20:30-31; 21:25). ...It has often been argued
that...the Beloved Disciple must therefore be identified with John.  But
chapter 21 does not make this identification,...It was the later church
tradition which first made this identification.  It is met for the first
time around A.D. 180 in Irenaeus...
...the time around A.D. 90 must be taken as a *terminus post quem*.

[3](255)
    From the formal point of view, therefore, ch. xxi gives the
impression of simply being a supplement; in fact its aim is to preserve
for the Church -- though in a modified form -- the original work that
is opposed to the traditional conception of the Church.
...The theological conception underlying the work as a whole rules out
the possibility that it is based on the testimony of an eye-witness...
...It was the Church redaction that first made it possible to consider him
as an actual figure among the circle of the disciples.  The work was
probably written in the East towards the end of the first century.

[4](151)
    None of the Gospels makes a direct reference to its author, but in
John there are indirect indications of a special witness of Jesus's career,
and particularly of his death. ...Do these references mean that the Gospel
of John was written by an eyewitness?...That seems scarcely likely,...
Rather, what we have in this book is the end product of two or more
generations of treasuring the Jesus tradition and at the same time of
interpreting it in altered circumstances.

[5](128)
    ...The traditional defence sought to establish the theological
authority of the gospel by proving that its author was an eyewitness.
Thus the truth of the gospel and its historicity were equated.
...In spite of the impressive stylistic unity of the book, there is a
widespread consensus that the text of the gospel is multi-layered and
reflects a complex history of the growth of tradition.
...The final chapter is often regarded as an appendix or epilogue.
...The real hermeneutical issue is lost, however, when the central problem
of the chapter is translated into one of authorship. ...I would rather argue
that a different layer of tradition is highly probable, but that the chapter
has been shaped with the entire Gospel already in mind and with a
conscious theological purpose.


     The Historical Jesus VI:   Conclusion and References


This is the sixth in a series of posts examining the historicity of
Jesus, specifically whether the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses.

Conclusion
    Well, I have demonstrated ad nauseum that the New Testament
accounts of Jesus are at best second-hand, and that the classical,
non-Christian writings do no more than say that Christians existed,
with Jesus and Pilate mentioned casually.  Thus I have conclusively
refuted Mr. Kiledal's criticism of my original post, and reconfirmed
every assertion I made therein.  Now let us get beyond the little
debating games and ask "So what?"

    The point of my going to all of this trouble is partly for my
own education of course, but I hope that it will also serve in this
capacity for others.  Christians need to be taught that the history
behind their sacred book is complex; that the book is multi-layered,
not as simplistic, black and white, *or* authoritative as they perhaps
have been led to believe.  It may disturb them that the historical accuracy
of the accounts of Jesus is called into question, but that is the same
situation they were in with Genesis and Darwinian evolution in the 19th
century, and Christianity managed to whether the storm.  It emerged
somewhat weaker, I think, and once modern biblical research is widely
disseminated, it's claims among adherents will doubtless be weakened
somewhat more.  This is not all to the bad (it encourages toleration)
but is also unavoidable and predictable given the success of science over
the last few hundred years.

    Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright
    morning hours, ran to the market place, and cried incessantly,
    "I seek God!  I seek God!" ...they yelled and laughed.  The madman
    jumped into their midst and pierced them with his glances.

    "Whither is God" he cried, "I shall tell you.  We have killed him -
    you and I.  All of us are his murderers.  But how have we done this?
    How were we able to drink up the sea?  Who gave us the sponge to
    wipe away the entire horizon?  What did we do when we unchained
    this earth from its sun?  Whither is it moving now?  Whither are
    we moving now?  Away from all suns?  Are we not plunging continually?
    Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions?  Is there any up or
    down left?  Are we not straying as through an infinite nothing?
    Do we not feel the breath of empty space?  Has it not become colder?
    ...Do we not smell anything yet of God's decomposition?  Gods too
    decompose.  God is dead.  God remains dead.  And we have killed him.
    How shall we, the murderers of all murderers, comfort ourselves?
    What was holiest and most powerful of all that the world has
    yet owned has bled to death under our knives.  Who will wipe this
    blood off us?

    Here the madman fell silent and looked again at his listeners;
    and they too were silent and stared at him in astonishment.  At last
    he threw his lantern on the ground, and it broke and went out.
    "I come too early," he said then;..."This deed is still more distant
    from them than the most distant stars - and yet they have done it
    themselves."

    It has been related further that on that same day the madman entered
    divers churches and there sang his requiem aeternam deo.  Led out
    and called to account, he is said to have replied each time,
    "What are these churches now if they are not the tombs and
    sepulchers of God?"



[1]    A Critical Introduction to the New Testament
    Reginald H. Fuller
    BS 2330.2 F84, 1966
This one is a no-nonsense, somewhat reductionistic account.

[2]    The Formation of the New Testament
    Eduard Lohse
    BS 2330.2 L6413, 1981
I haven't studied this one as much as the others, so I have no comment.

[3]    Introduction to the New Testament, An approach to its problems
    W. Marxsen
    BS 2330.2 M313, 1968
Marxsen has a concept that he wants to get across, that of 'layers of
tradition' in the compilation of the NT, and his writing is more attractive
than the others (even in translation).  Worthwhile reading all the way through.

[4]    Understanding the New Testament, Fourth Ed.
    Howard Clark Kee
    BS 2407 K37, 1983
A popular, up to date intro, worth reading.

[5]    The New Testament as Canon:  An Introduction
    Brevard S. Childs
    BS 2330.2 C493, 1984
It is impossible to stand Childs until you understand the agenda that he
has:  He is reacting against the reductionism inherent in source/etc.
criticism, and attempting to assert his own holistic interpretation
of the NT.  So for instance, the question of redaction of a text is not
so important in itself, but rather what it shows about the community
the work was a part of and how it relates to how the community viewed the
purpose of the work in the context of their belief.  In other words, pretty
wordy and roundabout, but useful.

[6]    "Who Do Men Say That I Am?"
    Cullen Murphy
    The Atlantic Monthly, December 1986, p.37
An excellent introduction to the topic, well written, highly recommended.

References to Christians in Roman Classical Authors (Just ones I've read)
    Tactitus, Annals: XV. 43
    Suetonius, Lives: Books VI and VIII
    Plinius Secundus, Epistolae: Number 96


Roger Squires