Wayne and others:

This will be a rather tightly monitored thread. We will need to stick closely to the subject with little straying. What we're dealing with here is basically what can and cannot be known about Jesus from the art and science of textual criticism; this will leave an impression not only on orthodox Christians who may reel at the limits of the New Testament scriptures outside of the living context of faith in which they were written, but on New Agers as well who may believe that orthodox notions are dubious at best. And so we may see, in some instances, where faith is reflected in textual criticism where it wasn't expected, and also where the former is moreso rooted in early church tradition of the first two centuries than more obviously in the Gospels and Pauline works.

I'm no scholar myself, so sources can be many, but in the interest of succinct dialogue, two camps are obvious. The Jesus Seminar, e.g, John Dominic Crossan and Bart Ehrman, and orthodox writers from both Catholic and Evangelical backgrounds, such as John Meier and Craig Blomberg. Others are welcome cosiderations, as the commitment to careful responses between posts will probably be the greatest ongoing challenge.

So I'm off to lift weights. I'll return later tonight or tomorrow morning with a more detailed outline and where we might start within this huge arena.

w.c., just to note the fine work done by Jim Arraj on this topic:
- http://www.innerexplorations.c...mortext/original.htm

Thanks Phil.

So for starters we should find out who is interested in this topic for discussion. Anyone willing to do some reading and fairly consider divergent views?

I'm interested in participating, but don't have much time to do reading and research. I could share a bit of my knowledge and reflection about Greco-Roman antiquity. Apart from biblical studies, I could present short reflections on other historical figures like Socrates, about which we know mostly from literature. I think people living 2000 years ago had a very different idea about historical facts and that's one of the causes why we have so little access to historical Jesus apart from testimonies already informed by faith. Historical Socrates? We really don't know much about him.

Oral traditions about Jesus, and the Nag Hammadi Library
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Two simple questions if I may:
Should textual criticism embrace non-canonical sources such as the Nag Hammadi manuscripts?

Another rich source, far too little investigated (as pointed out by Idries Shah and others), is today�s ongoing oral tradition in the Middle East. There is a wealth of ancient stories still told about Jesus (or Issa as he is known in Arabic) that complement the stories of the Gospel. Does anyone know of good writings on this subject?

I'm interested in joining the discussion but have limited time to do a lot of reading. I did print out that chapter by Araj. Thanks Phil.

This topic is all very good timing for me, as a matter of fact. A few months ago I sat in on the last of a series that the pastor at Vineyard (where I pray on their ministry team) gave on healing prayer. I went to support the prayer ministers and help model prayer for the students.

At the end, while I was putting away chairs, the Lord broke through and spoke to me: "If you're going to pray in My Name, you need to know Who I am!"

WOW...I was blasted. My first instinct was to defend myself and respond with, "But, Lord, I do know who you are!" But my smarter self realized that I was being directed to go *deeper* in knowing Jesus if I was going to continue on my path of praying for others.

There seem to be many ways to know Jesus at a deeper level, and I'm grateful that you are providing me with this one! Praise God!!

HP:

Yes, John Meier devotes about 15 pages of his first installment in the "Marginal Jew" series to the Nag Hammadi manuscripts. His treatment of extra-biblical sources being exhaustive to date, he doesn't mention any oral Arabic ones, and likely would if these were considered credible within the scholarly community. But it's worth an internet word search to see if something like this has earned serious attention elsewhere.

Shasha:

Maybe say a little more about what you think you'd like to read. Maybe Arraj's summary is enough, or the authors he mentions. Meier is a slow and somewhat painstaking read, especially if one is looking for inspiration. I find him worth the time. But getting through all four volumns could take a couple of years if you weren't going to read everyday. Raymond Brown's "An Introduction to the New Testament" is another way to go, and can be a companion for bible reading. More popular books by Luke Timothy Johnson might be a good place to start, since he is really writing, in some of his books, for the lay community.

There are some very bright evangelical scholars as well. Although at times they are accused of straining beyond what we can really know from a textual pov, they do bring some insight which compliments and challenges Catholic scholars. I'm fond of Ben Witherington (good writer, easy to read), who like LTJ writes both for the scholarly community and for folks like us.

I'll provide some links to online sources later.

I've read Luke Timothy Johnson's The Real Jesus and found it helpful (I even reviewed the book on Amazon). He certainly makes it clear that it's a fallacy to think that the overwhelming majority of biblical scholars are in the "Jesus Seminar" camp. Quite the contrary! He also demonstrates that many references to the historical Christ and historical circumstances mentioned in the Gospels are found in Paul. Additionally, Arraj summarizes the literature on the historical Jesus by listing 17 points that most scholars agree on.

To me, the biggest error made by the Crossan/Ehrman school is their assumption that the Jesus of Faith is not worthy of belief unless we have a comprehensive understanding of the Jesus of History. The problem with this is that what the New Testament presents is primarily the Jesus of Faith -- much along the lines of Plato's presentation of the "Socrates of Philosophy" (as mateusz noted). We do encounter the person, in both cases, even without knowing the details of their lives nor what they looked like.

Maybe a good way to proceed, then, in addition to reading and sharing about various relevant books, would be to raise questions you've heard or wondered about, and allow those who've read up on these matters to share responses. Relevant websites could also be pointed out and discussed.

Thanks Phil and w.c. for the guidance on where to start.

Do either of you recommend N.T. Wright on this subject?

As I mentioned on another thread, from what little reading I've done, I get the impression that this whole field of textual criticism always ends up in speculation.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] To me, the biggest error made by the Crossan/Ehrman school is their assumption that the Jesus of Faith is not worthy of belief unless we have a comprehensive understanding of the Jesus of History.[/qb]

St. Augustine's maxim reverses the sequence of events: crede, ut intelligas; 'believe, in order to understand'.

I have two of N.T. Wright's books, Jesus and The Resurrection of the Son of God, and haven't been able to read either. This thread may get me to reading them. What little I read seemed somehow contentious, maybe because so much of this is speculative. I don't know if it is possible to prove that Jesus is the Son of God, that He rose from the dead; it seems that what is needed is revelation, experience of the Risen Christ ( in a way that may not be necessary sensate) I guess I am just wondering if anyone can get converted by reading Biblical scholarship. I know from my experience that I had to step off over the cliff of faith, once the HS gave me this grace, before I was able to access Christ, or He could access me. Thanks, Phil, for the words on gnosticsm, still very relevant to our times, especially the need of the false self for spiritual attainment.I took a class about 25 years ago on the Hebrews, and scholars seemed in consensus that it was not written by Paul or someone in Paul's group. The style is too different, and it is more Platonic in philosophy. I think I will be following the thread avidly just because it is about Jesus.

"Maybe a good way to proceed, then, in addition to reading and sharing about various relevant books, would be to raise questions you've heard or wondered about, and allow those who've read up on these matters to share responses. Relevant websites could also be pointed out and discussed."


Yes, that would certainly narrow the field a bit! We could all help each other in that way.


bdb:

I've read several of N.T. Wright's books, and he is more difficult to follow than Luke Timothy Johnson. Wright's use of the english language doesn't seem as clear or simple. He's worth the effort, imo, but perhaps not the place to start for some. So if Phil, who is probably the most educated among us re: this subject matter, finds LTJ readable and helpful (as do I), then that might be a better place to start for some. Maybe take a look on Amazon for these various authors. N.T. Wright and John Meier are both quite dense, although LTJ is considered a significant scholar just as they are, and is a prolific writer; he may write even more for the general public than for scholarly journals.

I'll provide a link to a debate/panel discussion between Crossan, Borg, etc (Jesus Seminar camp), and N.T. Wright, LTJ, etc. This was posted here at SP some years back.

Woa . . . . . I hit the mother-load!


www.ntgateway.com/xtalk/debate.html

(Click on the link at the bottom page of the link above, under the section "The Conversation Continued," and you'll find an exchange between these scholars easier to follow)

www.ntgateway.com/Jesus/E-List.htm

www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html


I couldn't get the last link to work, but it looks like a good one. Google "Scholarly Approaches to and Perspectives on the Historical Study of Jesus."

Very good! I like Timothy Luke Johnson's summary, which is all I've read so far:
- http://www.ntgateway.com/xtalk/johnson7.txt

His rebuttals of the premises of the Jesus Seminar crowd are superb!

quote:

3. Recent efforts at historical reconstruction have been
driven less by the demands of historiography (the discovery of new
sources, the use of new methods) than by a reformist program directed at
Christian faith. Given the eroded state of discourse within Christian
churches and theology, such efforts can actually pass as a form of
Christian reflection, even though their starting points --- the
bracketing [to use a neutral term] of the resurrection, and the
deconstruction of the canonical Gospels in their literary integrity ---
would not have been recognized as orthodox in any age before our own.

Exactly!

And . . .

quote:

The Christian claim concerning the resurrection of
Jesus is the supreme example of a reality that can be asserted as "real"
or "true" without being capable of historical verification. But since
this claim is absolutely pivotal to the Christian understanding of Jesus
---even in his earthly life--- this means that what is most critical to
apprehending the "real Jesus" (in the view of Christians) cannot be
fitted within "the historical Jesus."

Touche'

Well, if any of you slug your way through the debate transcript, and notice you're tired, well, that is about par for the course in these things. Historians and scripture scholars work through a rather tight orifice, so to speak. It is a challenge to find one's inspiration in them, but helpful, for me, to experience just how resilient the New Testament and early church traditions are to their inquiries.

Here is a summary of what scholars often refer to as the primary criteria for assessing what is authentically the spoken words of an historical figure (taken from the Arraj article, which Phil links us to, but they are cited by Arraj as those presented by John Meier):

Embarrassment. If the Gospels record something embarrassing about Jesus, for example, he was baptized by John the Baptist, it is more likely that it actually happened rather than was created by the early Church.

Discontinuity. If something Jesus says or does is not to be found either in contemporary Judaism or the early Church, then it is more likely to have derived from Him.

Multiple attestation. More than one source for a saying or event puts it on surer historical ground.

Coherence. Anything that fits into the picture derived from using the first three criteria is more likely to be true.

The rejection and execution of Jesus. Jesus must have acted in such a way that the powers that be wanted to do away with him, and did so, so the sayings and actions of Jesus that could lead to such an effect gain a certain probability.
_______________________________

These are simplified by Arraj for the purpose of easy reading in his summary, but Meier explores them exhaustively in the first volumne of his series "The Marginal Jew" (That title, by the way, is meant to underscore how Jesus would have been largely unnoticed by Roman authorities during his lifetime, moreso than the church which grew so quickly and threatened Rome's ability to control Jewish reaction).

quote:

Originally posted by Shasha:
[qb] Thanks Phil and w.c. for the guidance on where to start.

Do either of you recommend N.T. Wright on this subject? [/qb]

Sorry to have missed this, Shasha. I'll echo w.c.'s recommendation of Luke Timothy Johnson above. The Real Jesus is a good one to start with. Arraj's chapter provides an excellent overview as well.

Dear W.C and Phil

In the lengthy and excellent article by Jim Arraj (thank you Phil for the link!I enjoyed it immensely) on the many past and ongoing attempts to discover what we can know about the historical Jesus using the historical-critical method especially as applied to the Scriptures, how it can justify or confirm one's faith in the picture of Christ depicted in the Gospels or is there evidence which could actually call into question one's faith. He poses the question this way: �Have the findings of the historians about Jesus made it more difficult, or impossible, to believe in the Jesus that faith proposes to us?�
Here is a quote from the article which I find to be, for me, extremely revealing as to Jesus� motives for his words and actions given us in the NT. This is, of course, Dupuis� interpretation:
�Our second example, Jacques Dupuis� Who Do You Say That I Am?, anchors the other end of the spectrum of possibilities concerning the relationship between history and faith. It is not history determining what faith should believe, but a genuine theology making use of history. In this work Dupuis traces how Christology developed starting with Jesus� special relationship with his Father. This relationship was the source of Jesus� boldness when he would speak about God�s kingdom in an authoritative way and as one who was establishing it. What sense would it have made to his disciples if Jesus had tried to tell them about his innermost relationship with the Father and his own divine pre-existence in an explicit and ontological way? What could they have understood of it? Chances are they would have been dumbfounded and uncomprehending. He had to take the language and religious ideas that they were used to, and plant within them the seeds of their transformation. The result was that after his death and resurrection the implicit Christology contained in Jesus� words and deeds would become an explicit Christology that appeared in the first preaching of the Apostles.�

Here is the critical point of interpretation for us who do not accept his resurrection as fact or his being the ONLY begotten son of the one FATHER, but simply consider Jesus as an advanced adept who, unlike most of us still today, KNEW his �pre-existence� as a spiritual being of the one Father, not only his but ours as well, and made his life an example of the Divine Love inherent to our �spiritual nature� and to bring that realization into actuality into this world of �sin�(which is a direct result of that ignorance of our pre-existent spiritual beingness),� Now, Jesus knew as Dupuis states that he could not simply make such a declaration to his apostles for they would be �dumbfounded and uncomprehending� . That would be a truly radical ontology of man and departure from all previous religious ideas and totally inconsistent with their Jewish beliefs. So, how was he to present this profound revelation to them as the
�seeds of their transformation�? I contend that Jesus using �language and religious ideas that they were used to� (parables and the like) in his counseling with them and in his many sermons to the people, particularly the one Matthew gives us on The Mount, as well as in his deeds, attempted to show them what was possible here on earth if they would but realize their own divinity which WAS the �way, the truth and the light� of their transformation!
But, what about the actual resurrection which is �proof� of his unique divinity you say? Did this really happen or did Jesus using �religious ideas that they were used to� believe that only by this act (or the appearance of it) could he convince them beyond any doubt (Thomas comes to mind here) of HIS divinity and thus, their own? Or, was this all imagined by the Apostles for their own acceptance of Jesus' divinity (and inability to accept their own), as they understood his teachings, requiring a �unique status� applicable to only their Lord and Master? Or, was his resurrection ADDED later to the Gospels to insure convert's acceptance and faith in Jesus' divinity as what they percieved to be the only way that others could accept his profound teachings. THEIR divinity was not even considered...they were born in sin (the legacy of the only texts they knew, The OT) and only redemption from God or his INCARNATION could save them from their sinfulness?

According to Bart Erhman in his �Lost Christianities: Christian Scriptures and the Battles over Authentication� he states that one of the famous �additions� to scripture was to the Gospel of Mark (in Jim Arraj�s article being cited here Meier refers to a fragment found in the Dead Sea Scrolls believed to be from Mark�s Gospel and from 50 AD, indicating an earlier date for this gospel and certainly closer to the time of Jesus than previous believed-maybe someone can give me more information here on this fragment). Erhman states unequivocally that �the last 12 verses are not found in any of our earliest manuscripts (of Mark�s Gospel), so it is not considered original to Mark�. One clearly has to ask why these critical verses to the historicity of the resurrection are not present in Mark�s Gospel AND WHY then it was felt necessary to ADD them later! This most important fact of the resurrection of Jesus' body as to the reality of his divinity is then found in the other Gospels, apparently, also written much LATER than we now believe the Markian Gospel to be. He states also that this later �addition� to Mark was NOT consistent with the Greek style of writing found in Mark. Another indication that it was not of the original manuscript written by Mark. This clearly shows theological tampering to support faith and a disregard for the historical truth of Jesus' life and its meaning for all of us.

What say you all about this critical omission in the Gospel of Mark upon which the reality of the resurrection is SOLELY based.

Your Brother in Spirit,

Wayne

Wayne, I've mentioned before the existence of an oral tradition that preceded the written Gospels and Epistles, and which served as the basis for validating and authenticating those works (primarily on the basis of their connection with an Apostle, and their use in liturgy and catechesis). That oral tradition believed in the resurrection of Jesus decades before anything was written; it's the only thing that explains the birth of the Christian Church, as the teachings of Jesus were really nothing new, at least in terms of ethics. The Pauline writings are believed to be the earliest (beginning around 46 AD in 1 Thes.) and they definitely give witness to resurrection faith (see 1 Cor. 15, for example, and many other places). Your premise seems to be that Christianity was initially a kind of ethical movement inspired by Jesus' teachings with a gnostic mysticism emphasizing "innate divinity" doesn't hold up.

As for the addenda to Mark's gospel, most scholars agree that it was a later addition -- a composite of several stories, actually -- but some also believe that the Marcan ending was lost, as without the addenda the ending seems truncated. We don't have the original manuscript written by Mark, so we'll never know, for sure, but it's certain that Christian communities believing in the resurrection were alive and well long before Mark wrote anything.

Btw, it's quite telling that you could read Arraj's chapter and come away with the points you're making above! You had to gloss over and minimize quite a bit to do so. My sense is that you don't really understand what the apostolic/orthodox Christian tradition is saying, and/or that you consider it a distortion of a gnostic mysticism, which you take to be Jesus' true message. In either case, there's no way to reason with you about this as you seem to have your mind already made up and only pick and choose authors and tidbits of information that suit your purposes, ignoring anything that conflicts.

Wayne:

The ending to the Gospel of Mark that doesn't appear in most of the oldest manuscripts is Chapter 16: 9-20. Chapter 16 in most of the oldest manuscripts ends with verse 8. Those eight verses, 16: 1-8, are an account of the resurrection, describing the announcement by an angel to some of the women disciples who had arrived at the tomb after the Sabbath to annoint Jesus' body . They are told by the angel, "He is risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter, "He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you. Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid."

I've run across a number of New Agers, like yourself, who don't bother to read the New Testament, but having read Ehrman, think the Gospel of Mark contains no authentic account of the resurrection. Rather, what is missing from most of the oldest manuscripts isn't the account of the resurrection, but what the frightened women eventually did, which is the additional material beyond verse 8: they tell the male disciples of their encounter with the risen Jesus. The men are incredulous, even after Jesus appeared to two of them, as the others were still not trusting such reports. Jesus then appears to them all as they are having a meal, and rebukes them for not believing the women and the two men.

Since you have gone to the trouble to read Ehrman, why not read Meier, or Raymond Brown's book on the resurrection, or the book recording the dialogue between John Dominic Crossan and N.T. Wright on the resurrection? You are approaching the subject with what seems a lot of preconceived notions, but without having given orthodox biblical scholarship a fair shake.

I think it's impossible to extract "history" from ancient accounts of philosophers and religious figures.

I spent some time studying what ancient philosophical texts really meant for their ancient readers. Scholars tended to project our contemporary ideas backwards, for example, thinking that Plato, or Plotinus wanted to convey in their books information about their philosophy. But when we discover that Plotinus' texts were written for the close circle of long term disciples of Plotinus, we realize that it was not the purpose. The readers didn't read to know Plotinus philosophy, they already knew it. So what was the purpose of those texts (and many others in antiquity)? It was an effect that it should have on the reader. The text should transform the reader morally and cognitively, even mystically. So the author was primarily focuse on HOW to write to excite longing for God and good life, or to give instructions for spiritual practice, or give a good example of saintly figure.

This leads us to religious "biographies" of that time. We cannot tell the historical truth from fiction because authors and readers weren't interested in that and didn't look for that, they wanted to grow and to change - at least that was the ideal goal of writing and reading. So someone reading about Socrates, and later about Apollonius, Plotinus, Proclus and other sages of the late antiquity wanted to feel inspired by it. I suppose the same could be said about Christian literature, like St. Anthony's life or Augustine's Confessions.
It doesn't mean that it was pure fiction. When Porphyry writes that he cannot tell us where and when Plotinus was born, because Plotinus never wanted to talk about himself, it indicates that he and his readers wanted to know about the masters' history, at least to a certain extent. But Porphyry conveys another information, perhaps, a more important one - namely, that a sage is not interested in his person, he transcended egoistic perspective.
Plato creating the figure of Socrates wanted to help his students and readers transform in the likeness of Socrates, or to capture some of Socrates' famous power of personal teaching (he "paralyzed" his disciples, completely shaked their convictions and beliefs, he was like a magician playing a magic flute etc. etc.). When I read "Crito" where Socrates is offered a possibility of escape from prison and death, but he refuses to and gives arguments for that, I'm not sure if this was a historical fact, or just a good topic for a dialogue to show sth to people.

Now to Jesus. I don't know if Jewish tradition of writing was that similar to Greco-Roman, but perhaps the authors of the Gospels weren't interested in facts. Of course, to a certain degree - yes, it was important that Jesus was a historical, actual person, that he walked through Galilee and he died "under Pontius Pilatus" - so this is all history. But more important was the theological message and history was a servant of this, not an independent value.

So - we don't know nothing about historical biography of Jesus, apart from the accounts of his disciples. And they organized the oral material in such a way that it could be transformative and formative for listeners/readers. We believe that it was actually the Holy Spirit that gave these texts a supernatural power of transforming, but the authors also wanted to transform, not to give information about Jesus' life.
I exaggerate a bit in my views, since it is not a scholarly discussion , but maybe exaggeration can give us a better perspective for what it really is.

We also see Orthodox/Gnostic debate on this thread here, a history repeating itself...
By the way, it's interesting how faith influences what we see or not see.
In Poland there was a significant case of a priest, probably one of the best Polish theologians and also a member of a Papal theological council, an incredibly brilliant and sharp and knowledgable man, who abandoned priesthood and recently even became and apostate.
In his theological reflections he came to conclusions that Jesus was only a human and that he had an exceptional experience of God which he tried to convey. You can imagine what follows... The critique of his position was of course that he's trying to find a "Jesus" out of the context of Apostolic faith and Scriptures, a "real Jesus" who didn't think he was the only Son of God. But where to look for this Jesus? We don't have anything apart from Apostolic faith about Jesus. If we say his disciples didn't understand and the Scriptures are somehow tampered with by them - what is our point of reference, we don't have other versions, we don't have any good evidence that Jesus said A, and his manipulative disciples written B. But this is what many NewAgers and Gnostics today openly say.

We might say that Jesus said an actual "Jesus-like" thing in,let's say, Gospel of John ("You are Gods... etc.), which is our "A", but his disciple added another thing, which is "B", like in the Prologue - "he was the light... John the Baptist WASN'T THE LIGHT BUT CAME TO TESTIFY TO THE LIGHT". If the greatest of the prophets isn't the Light, then how can we talk about "innate divinity" that Jesus believed to be in us all. So probably John Evangelist added something to Jesus authentic teaching. But, please, show me true "Jesus-like" words outside of his disciple's testimony? We could easily dismiss every Jesus' statement in JOhn's Gospel on that ground or take them all to be truly said by Jesus, or pick some, and reject others... Whatever we like to do!
Without a faith in the authority and without a faith in Jesus we are able to create hundreds of different intepretations of Jesus figure and history, but we still cannot have a historical proof that Jesus said this or that.
At least, it seems so to me...

(I notice that my posts become longer and longer... )

Mateusz:

I don't think you exaggerate the views of the early church, at least as we can glean this from the writings of the early church fathers and the gospels, along with the way worship occured in the Synagogues. What we now have as the gospels, which are reliable in terms of the earliest manuscripts, are likely the eventual outcome of more piecemeal writings from various emerging traditions representing the teachings of the original apostles to the various church communities. IOW, there were likely already rather early written accounts being used in church liturgies as credal expressions - readings that would have been included in Old Testament readings in the Synagogues where the first Christians still worshiped for some time. There was, as Phil points out, a profound and reliable oral tradition, but it is no surprise the Gospels emerged as they did. By the time the disciples of the apostles were being martyred, if the church had wanted, it could have easily made those early gospel accounts much more uniform, but that would probably have been unthinkable, as the Old Testament presents variations in story telling which were part of the richness of the inspired traditions.

Yes, your description of the way historical events serve the purpose of inspiration and theological discourse seem congruent with the views of many biblical scholars. A case in point would be the writings of St. Paul. Scholars of the Jesus Seminar, for instance, are want to make the point that Paul didn't mention much at all about the Jesus we know from the gospels and therefore isn't to be trusted as an early source re: the beliefs of the earliest church in Jerusalem. Of course, the fact that Paul mentions meeting with James and Peter and the other apostles after his own conversion experience and having that experience validated by them, and then about ten years later (per the book of Acts) meeting in Jerusalem over important ecclesial matters and spending two weeks with Peter, is hard to overlook. He also mentions what is likely the earliest formulas for liturgical prayer in the church e.g, the words of consecration for the "breaking of bread," (I Corinthians) and a credal embodiment of the church's earliest understanding of Christology (Philippians). And so much was already understood about the Jesus of faith, and probably also the Jesus of history, in those early communities, which were not in dispute when Paul wrote his letters. His letters have distinct purposes which reflect the needs of times and places. But to say that there is some significant breach in Paul's teachings is to make a difficult case. As you say, history was easily transmitted via the oral tradition which was already deeply rooted in these cultures, and the use of that history in the context of liturgy served the purpose of inspiration and teaching, which is what we see in Paul's writings.

In this light, one can see how the abbreviated ending to Mark's gospel foreshadows a continued story which would have been told within those early church communities already deeply immersed in a credal tradition. A story they probably told over and over again to young and old alike: what happened after the women met the angel and found the tomb empty? What was it like for the male disciples to first hear this from the women? The criteria of embarrassement is probably to be found here in a context that is quite "telling." What a great device for story telling!

"The critique of his position was of course that he's trying to find a "Jesus" out of the context of Apostolic faith and Scriptures, a "real Jesus" who didn't think he was the only Son of God. But where to look for this Jesus?"


When we look to the Apocryphal Gospels, or what is popularly known as the Gnostic Gospels, the earliest appears to be the Gospel of Thomas (composed circa mid-second century A.D.). Here is an excerpt from John Meier's lengthy treatment of that text:


"Is it likely that the very early source of Jesus' sayings that the Gospel of Thomas supposedly drew upon contained withn itself material belonging to such diverse branches of 1st century Christian tradition as Q, special M (thought to be a source of Matthew), special L (Lukan source), Matthean and Lucan redaction, the triple tradition, and possible the Johannine tradition? What were the source, locus, and composition of this incredibly broad yet very early tradition? Who were its bearers? Is it really conceivable that there was some early Christian source that embraced within itself all these different strands of what became the canonical Gospels? Or is it more likely that the Gospel of Thomas has conflated material from the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, with possible use of Mark and John as well? Of the two hypotheses I find the second much more probable especially given all we have seenof such conflating tnedencies in other 2nd century Christian documents. INdeed, it may even be that the Gospel of Thomas is directly dependent not on the four canonical Gospels, but on some conflation of them that had already been composed in Greek . . . . This hypothesis becomes all the more likely when we notice that, while the Gospel of Thomas regularly censors out elements of Synoptic redaction, no an dthen a trace of the order or theological tendency of the Synoptic Gospels survives.." ("A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus," p. 137).

Mateusz:

Your story of the Polish priest sounds similar to the internet descriptions of Bart Ehrman's falling into agnosticism. Apparently Ehrman was a young bible touting Christian fully convicted of the inerrancy (or literalism) of each and every verse of the Bible when he entered undergraduate school. It was either there, or in graduate school, that this world of inerrancy fell apart for him. I've read where some of his peers, equally yoked with expectations of inerrancy, either lost their faith or came to understand this relationship between history and liturgy which we are now discussing (of course, liturgy is rather weak in the some of the Protestant churches). In any case, Ehrman and Ben Witherington apparently attended the same Ph.D program, but came out of the scholarly wash quite differently. One Amazon reviewer of one of Ehrman's books says that Ehrman appears to have "bit down too hard on the fundamentalist taco!" Too painful to really be funny, but it makes the point for how fundamentalism involves a rather narrow lense for seeing the world; such narrowness can appear in any guise, religious or anti-religious.