Historical Evidence - Revision history

David Persyn: /* Footnotes */ clean out temp footnotes

2011-08-05T01:25:15Z

‎Footnotes: clean out temp footnotes

David Persyn: /* The High Cost of the Apostolic Church’s Proclamation of Jesus’ Divinity */ footnotes

2011-08-05T01:24:43Z

‎The High Cost of the Apostolic Church’s Proclamation of Jesus’ Divinity: footnotes

David Persyn: /* Is There Evidence for Jesus’ Divinity? */ footnotes

2011-08-05T01:22:32Z

‎Is There Evidence for Jesus’ Divinity?: footnotes

David Persyn: /* A Brief Description of Criteria to Establish Historicity */ footnotes

2011-08-05T01:19:47Z

‎A Brief Description of Criteria to Establish Historicity: footnotes

David Persyn: footnotes

2011-08-05T01:10:31Z

footnotes

Show changes

David Persyn: formats

2011-08-01T20:08:51Z

formats

David Persyn: Protected "Historical Evidence": High traffic page ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite))

2011-07-27T16:10:29Z

Protected "Historical Evidence": High traffic page ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite))

David Persyn: /* Is There Evidence for Jesus’ Divinity? */ formats

2011-07-27T16:07:53Z

‎Is There Evidence for Jesus’ Divinity?: formats

David Persyn: formats

2011-07-27T16:06:03Z

formats

David Persyn: /* Footnotes */ put in temp working footnotes for scripting

2011-07-27T16:01:27Z

‎Footnotes: put in temp working footnotes for scripting

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:25, 5 August 2011
Line 209:		Line 209:

	<references />		<references />
−
−	~~Josephus 1965, 18:3.3.~~
−
−	~~See Babylonian Talmud; “Sanhedrin” 43a.~~
−
−	~~Cited in Kirby 2006.~~
−
−	~~Meier 1999, pp. 476-77.~~
−
−	Since the time of Aristotle, it has been widely known that the following syllogism is fallacious. “If A, then B. Not A. Therefore, not B.” So also the syllogism, “If multiple attestation, then historically probable. Not multiple attestation. Therefore, not historically probable.”
−
−	~~See McArthur 1969(b), pp. 139-140.~~
−
−	~~This criterion is used with respect to second-Temple Judaism in Wright’s argument for the historicity of the resurrection in Unit II-D.~~
−
−	Latourelle notes the universal acceptance of this criterion by the entire spectrum of exegetical interpretation: “It is accepted by Bultmann, Kasemann, Conzelmann, Bornkamm, Jeremias, Perrin, McArthur, Dahl, Mussner, Trilling, Shurmann, Rigaux, Cerfaux, Leon-Dufour, Caba, Lentzen-Deis, de la Potterie, Calvert, Zedda, Lambiasi, McEleney and Schillebeeckx” (Latourelle 1979, p. 223).
−
−	~~Latourelle 1979, p. 224. See also Jeremias 1971, Chapter 1.~~
−
−	~~See Latourelle 1979, pp. 224-225, and Jeremias 1971.~~
−
−	~~See Latourelle 1979, p. 225.~~
−
−	~~See Unit II-D.~~
−
−	Raymond Brown asks the logical question: “Why was this title so massively retrojected, being placed on Jesus’ lips on a scale far outdistancing the retrojection of “the Messiah,” “the Son of God,” and “the Lord”? (Brown 1994(a), p. 90).
−
−	~~Rigaux 1958.~~
−
−	~~Latourelle 1979, p. 227.~~
−
−	Even Bultmann and Perrin acknowledge that this use of the criterion of coherence is valid in limited ways. (See Bultmann 1960; and Perrin 1967 and 1976.) In so doing, they also acknowledge the validity of the criterion of discontinuity. Joachim Jeremias gives the most thoughtful and comprehensive use of this criterion in his groundbreaking analysis of the historicity of the parables of the kingdom. (See Jeremias 1972.)
−
−	~~Latourelle 1979, p. 228.~~
−
−	~~Latourelle 1979, p.229.~~
−
−	Form criticism was originally developed for Old Testament exegesis by Hermann Gunkel. It was further supplemented by Martin Noth and Gerhard von Rad (for the Old Testament) and then was applied to the Gospels by Karl Ludwig Schmidt, and later by Martin Dibelius, Rudolf Bultmann, C.H. Dodd, and others. It had some excesses in its early formulations which have been tempered and corrected by sound historical analysis, particularly by C.H. Dodd, Joachim Jeremias, and more recently by John P. Meier and N.T. Wright). Detailed descriptions of the contributions of each of these well-known scholars may be found in any standard introduction to the Old or New Testament.
−
−	~~Wright 2003, p. 729.~~
−
−	~~Dunn 1975, p. 170.~~
−
−	~~For a general context in which these events occurred, see Dunn 1991, Hengel 1980, and Wright 1996.~~
−
−	~~Jeremias 1958 and Küng 1978, p. 371.~~

@@ Line 186: / Line 186: @@
 == The High Cost of the Apostolic Church’s Proclamation of Jesus’ Divinity ==
-The attribution of divinity to Jesus cost the apostolic Church dearly, because it seemed to run contrary to the strict monotheism of second-Temple Judaism and was viewed as blasphemous and repugnant to most Jewish audiences.  This eventually led to Jewish Christians being banned from the Synagogue (which they did not want), a loss of social and financial status, and even persecution and death.
+The attribution of divinity to Jesus cost the apostolic Church dearly, because it seemed to run contrary to the strict monotheism of second-Temple Judaism and was viewed as blasphemous and repugnant to most Jewish audiences.  This eventually led to Jewish Christians being banned from the Synagogue (which they did not want), a loss of social and financial status, and even persecution and death.<ref>For a general context in which these events occurred, see Dunn 1991, Hengel 1980, and Wright 1996.</ref>
 At the very least, the proclamation of Jesus’ divinity was apologetically unappealing.  Jewish audiences would not have been attracted to an apparent blasphemy, and both Jewish and Gentile audiences would not have been attracted to the proclamation of a crucified man as divine.  Why would the apostolic Church have selected a doctrine which would have been viewed so unfavorably by the very audience which it wanted to attract?
@@ Line 194: / Line 194: @@
 Why, then, did the apostolic Church go so unapologetically and dangerously far to proclaim (ardently) that “Jesus is Lord?”  Why didn’t they make their preaching more apologetically appealing?  Why did they suffer social and financial loss, and even persecution and death, when it all could have been avoided by simply giving up the implication of His divinity?  I think the only reasonable and responsible answer is that they thought He really was divine.
-So why did the apostolic Church believe Him to be divine (and even to share a unity and co-equality with the Father in all eternity)?  How could they be so sure of this radical proclamation which had so many negative consequences, when they could have taken the “easier road” in proclaiming Him to be a martyr prophet?  Was it simply because Jesus indicated His divine Sonship with the Father?  I would submit that the early Church believed in Jesus’ lordship (divinity) for four reasons:
+So why did the apostolic Church believe Him to be divine (and even to share a unity and co-equality with the Father in all eternity)?  How could they be so sure of this radical proclamation which had so many negative consequences, when they could have taken the “easier road” in proclaiming Him to be a martyr prophet?<ref>Jeremias 1958 and Küng 1978, p. 371.</ref>  Was it simply because Jesus indicated His divine Sonship with the Father?  I would submit that the early Church believed in Jesus’ lordship (divinity) for four reasons:
 ) Jesus’ bodily-glorified resurrection (Unit II-C&D),

@@ Line 124: / Line 124: @@
 As N.T. Wright implies, it would have taken something of this magnitude to move the apostles from the status of believers in a dead and humiliated master to a force which ultimately converted the Roman Empire and became a world Church:
-<blockquote>It launched a claim on the world:  a claim at once absurd (a tiny group of nobodies cocking a snook at the might of Rome) and very serious, so serious that within a couple of generations the might of Rome was trying, and failing, to stamp it out.  It grew from an essentially positive view of the world, of creation.  It refused to relinquish the world to the principalities and powers, but claimed even them for allegiance to the Messiah who was now the lord, the kyrios. </blockquote>
+<blockquote>It launched a claim on the world:  a claim at once absurd (a tiny group of nobodies cocking a snook at the might of Rome) and very serious, so serious that within a couple of generations the might of Rome was trying, and failing, to stamp it out.  It grew from an essentially positive view of the world, of creation.  It refused to relinquish the world to the principalities and powers, but claimed even them for allegiance to the Messiah who was now the lord, the kyrios.<ref>Wright 2003, p. 729.</ref></blockquote>
 Jesus’ risen appearance was experienced as divine power in human history, and unequivocally implied His divine status.  Paul’s recounting of an early Christian kerygma (proclamation) makes this connection between resurrection and divinity quite clear:
@@ Line 132: / Line 132: @@
 Does Jesus’ transformed embodiment and glorified appearance exhaust the evidence for His divinity?  Though it is very powerful evidence, it does not.  As the above passage from Romans implies, the apostolic Church had access to another entrance of God into history, namely, the Holy Spirit, who was experienced as the personified power of God, and was possessed by Jesus during His ministry, given by Jesus after His resurrection, and connected with the name of Jesus to this very day.  James Dunn notes in this regard that:
-<blockquote>“wonders and signs” are attributed variously [by Luke in Acts] to the Spirit of God, the name of Jesus and the hand of the Lord, without any attempt being made to explain the relationship of these concepts of power. </blockquote>
+<blockquote>“wonders and signs” are attributed variously [by Luke in Acts] to the Spirit of God, the name of Jesus and the hand of the Lord, without any attempt being made to explain the relationship of these concepts of power.<ref>Dunn 1975, p. 170.</ref></blockquote>
 Though the early witnesses had a privileged access to Jesus’ divinity in their experience of His risen embodiment and transformation, Christians today still have an experiential access to the personified power of God in the Holy Spirit.  If the millions of accounts of healings, particularly those without any known physical explanation, and other charismatic manifestations of the Holy Spirit are not to be totally discounted; and if all the internal manifestations of the Holy Spirit (such as a peace beyond all understanding, the ability to call God “Abba,” the inspiration to understand and articulate truths beyond our ordinary human knowledge and wisdom, the curious energy which draws us toward new opportunities when other doors have been closed, the insight into the heart of Jesus which transforms us in a humble, self-sacrificial love) are likewise not to be totally discounted, then we too have access to the very Spirit of God that constituted a vital piece of the evidence for Jesus’ divinity, and more importantly, constitutes the vehicle through which we can be animated disciples of Jesus and transformed into His image.

@@ Line 72: / Line 72: @@
 We should not infer from this that Jesus did not make reference to His divinity.  As will be seen in Unit II-G, He did – but in an indirect way.  For example, He spoke about bringing the kingdom of God (with its eternal significance) to the world in His own person; He claimed to vanquish evil by His own authority; His mission was precisely the one reserved for Yahweh alone; He referred to Himself as the “Son of Man” (with its eschatological significance within second-Temple Judaism’s interpretation of Daniel 7:13-14); and He implied, in three distinct ways, that He is the exclusive Son of the Father.  These indirect references to His divinity were consistent with His desire to avoid self-aggrandizement and to induce His disciples to recognize His divine Sonship through His actions and in their hearts.
-The Criterion of Coherence (or Continuity, or Conformity).  The criterion of coherence is used in two distinct ways.  The more uncommon way was comprehensively elucidated by Béda Rigaux in 1958.   He noted that the Evangelists’ accounts conform almost perfectly with the Palestinian and Jewish milieu of the period of Jesus, as confirmed by history, archeology, and literature of the time of Jesus.  Latourelle summarizes several of Rigaux’s examples as follows:
+The Criterion of Coherence (or Continuity, or Conformity).  The criterion of coherence is used in two distinct ways.  The more uncommon way was comprehensively elucidated by Béda Rigaux in 1958.<ref>Rigaux 1958.</ref>  He noted that the Evangelists’ accounts conform almost perfectly with the Palestinian and Jewish milieu of the period of Jesus, as confirmed by history, archeology, and literature of the time of Jesus.  Latourelle summarizes several of Rigaux’s examples as follows:
-<blockquote>[T]he evangelical description of the human environment (work, habitation, professions), of the linguistic and cultural environment (patterns of thought, Aramaic substratum), of the social, economic, political and juridical environment, of the religious environment especially (with its rivalries between Pharisees and Sadducees, its religious preoccupations concerning the clean and the unclean, the law and the Sabbath, demons and angels, the poor and the rich, the Kingdom of God and the end of time), the evangelical description of all this is remarkably faithful to the complex picture of Palestine at the time of Jesus.</blockquote>
+<blockquote>[T]he evangelical description of the human environment (work, habitation, professions), of the linguistic and cultural environment (patterns of thought, Aramaic substratum), of the social, economic, political and juridical environment, of the religious environment especially (with its rivalries between Pharisees and Sadducees, its religious preoccupations concerning the clean and the unclean, the law and the Sabbath, demons and angels, the poor and the rich, the Kingdom of God and the end of time), the evangelical description of all this is remarkably faithful to the complex picture of Palestine at the time of Jesus.<ref>Latourelle 1979, p. 227.</ref></blockquote>
 This leads to the conclusion that the Gospel writers were exceedingly careful in conserving and portraying the ambiance surrounding Jesus’ ministry, even though second-Temple Judaism had progressed considerably between the time of Jesus’ ministry and the final redaction of the Gospels.  This leads Rigaux and many others to the conclusion that the Gospel writers did care about historical accuracy and were careful to preserve the historical setting at the time of Jesus.  If they cared that much about the cultural environment, would they have not done as much to preserve the circumstances surrounding the ministry of Jesus Himself?  As we saw above, the miracle stories are remarkably restrained by comparison with the Gnostic gospels, and as we shall see, they also contain the same elements of Palestinian Judaism at the time of Jesus to which Rigaux refers.  Interesting and corroborating as this might be, this use of the principle of coherence can only conclude to the general historicity of the Gospels.  Its usefulness in confirming particular aspects of them is limited.  However, the second use of the principle of coherence can confirm the historicity of particular aspects of the Gospels.
-The second use is based on the criteria of multiple attestation and discontinuity, and proceeds in two steps.   First, the criteria of multiple attestation and discontinuity are used to establish the historicity of central teachings of Jesus.  The primary example of this is Jesus’ teaching about the immediate coming of the kingdom of God in His own person, which is completely discontinuous from second-Temple Judaism (which had a notion of a future kingdom at the time of the parousia, but nothing like a present kingdom, particularly one brought by a man!).  It is also discontinuous with the teaching of the early Church whose theology had evolved beyond the “coming of the kingdom” to the divinity of Jesus.  Once these core teachings of Jesus are established, we can proceed to the second step, namely, to show the historicity of actions or other teachings which are linked to (and dependent on) this core teaching.  For example, Joachim Jeremias uses this technique to establish the validity of the parables of the kingdom which begin with “the kingdom of God is like…,” and imply the present reality of that kingdom.  The parables would make little sense without presuming the present reality of the kingdom.
+The second use is based on the criteria of multiple attestation and discontinuity, and proceeds in two steps.<ref>Even Bultmann and Perrin acknowledge that this use of the criterion of coherence is valid in limited ways. (See Bultmann 1960; and Perrin 1967 and 1976.) In so doing, they also acknowledge the validity of the criterion of discontinuity. Joachim Jeremias gives the most thoughtful and comprehensive use of this criterion in his groundbreaking analysis of the historicity of the parables of the kingdom. (See Jeremias 1972.)</ref>  First, the criteria of multiple attestation and discontinuity are used to establish the historicity of central teachings of Jesus.  The primary example of this is Jesus’ teaching about the immediate coming of the kingdom of God in His own person, which is completely discontinuous from second-Temple Judaism (which had a notion of a future kingdom at the time of the parousia, but nothing like a present kingdom, particularly one brought by a man!).  It is also discontinuous with the teaching of the early Church whose theology had evolved beyond the “coming of the kingdom” to the divinity of Jesus.  Once these core teachings of Jesus are established, we can proceed to the second step, namely, to show the historicity of actions or other teachings which are linked to (and dependent on) this core teaching.  For example, Joachim Jeremias uses this technique to establish the validity of the parables of the kingdom which begin with “the kingdom of God is like…,” and imply the present reality of that kingdom.  The parables would make little sense without presuming the present reality of the kingdom.
 Latourelle gives several other examples that have been verified by extensive analytical and historical studies:
-<blockquote>…the example of the Beatitudes, originally the proclamation of the Good Tidings about the arrival of the messianic Kingdom (analyzed by Dupont), the example of the Pater Noster, originally and essentially a prayer for the restoration of the Kingdom (analyzed by H. Schurmann, J. Alonso Diaz, R. Brown, J. Jeremias), the example of the miracles, intimately connected with the subject of the Kingdom of God and to that of conversion, the example of the triple temptation (analyzed by Dupont and Jeremias). </blockquote>
+<blockquote>…the example of the Beatitudes, originally the proclamation of the Good Tidings about the arrival of the messianic Kingdom (analyzed by Dupont), the example of the Pater Noster, originally and essentially a prayer for the restoration of the Kingdom (analyzed by H. Schurmann, J. Alonso Diaz, R. Brown, J. Jeremias), the example of the miracles, intimately connected with the subject of the Kingdom of God and to that of conversion, the example of the triple temptation (analyzed by Dupont and Jeremias).<ref>Latourelle 1979, p. 228.</ref></blockquote>
 Another example which is more germane to our purpose of examining the historicity of Jesus’ miracles occurs when Jesus makes a remarkable proclamation after curing a dumb demoniac in the Gospel of Luke (11:20):  “But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.” The proclamation of the immediate presence of the kingdom is very typical of the preaching of Jesus (verified by the criteria of multiple attestation and discontinuity).  When this is combined with the fact that Jesus typically linked His exorcisms to the vanquishing of evil by His own authority, it is not a far stretch to conclude that He really did link “the vanquishing of evil by His own authority” to “the bringing of the kingdom in His own person” (which enjoys multiple attestation).  This would seem to indicate that the historical Jesus performed exorcisms for the express purpose of demonstrating that the kingdom of God had arrived in His own person.
@@ Line 90: / Line 90: @@
 The Criterion of Sufficient and Necessary Explanation.  Latourelle describes this criterion as follows:
-<blockquote>If, before a considerable collection of facts or of data, which require a coherent and sufficient explanation, there is offered an explanation which clarifies and brings together in harmony all these elements (which, otherwise, would remain enigmas), we may conclude that we are in the presence of an authentic datum (fact, deed, attitude, word of Jesus). </blockquote>
+<blockquote>If, before a considerable collection of facts or of data, which require a coherent and sufficient explanation, there is offered an explanation which clarifies and brings together in harmony all these elements (which, otherwise, would remain enigmas), we may conclude that we are in the presence of an authentic datum (fact, deed, attitude, word of Jesus).<ref>Latourelle 1979, p.229.</ref></blockquote>
 We will see a very extended example of this criterion throughout Unit II-D, in N.T. Wright’s pursuit of a sufficient and necessary explanation for the five Christian mutations of second-Temple Judaism’s view of resurrection.  John P. Meier uses it to establish the historicity of miracles in general.
@@ Line 96: / Line 96: @@
 The above four historical criteria are very effective in establishing the historicity of all four kinds of miracles in general because multiple attestation can be applied to multiple instances, and the criteria of discontinuity and coherence can be applied to pervasive themes.  However, it is slightly more difficult to apply historical criteria to single stories or narratives (as Meier does) because multiple attestation may not be available (i.e., a particular story may have only one source in Mark, Q, M, L, or J).  Moreover, instances of discontinuity (from either second-Temple Judaism or embarrassment to the Church) may become less relevant in the standardization of the form of the story.  Allow me to explain.
-Form criticism is a method  which classifies units of scripture by literary pattern (e.g., parables or exhortations, or, with respect to Jesus’ miracles, exorcism stories, healing stories, stories about raising from the dead, or nature miracle stories).  It seeks to identify its various layers of oral transmission.  It begins with a formulaic presentation given in the New Testament which has consistent identifiable features.  It then works its way back through the various strands of oral transmission to a very primitive form of the story which was witnessed and probably well-known in the town or district in which it occurred.  Thus, form criticism assumes that as an account is orally transmitted from the time of its historical core, it takes on accretions which correspond to the teaching needs of its transmitters in the early Church.  Finally, it takes on a standard form with particular identifiable elements, which is then fashioned into a written account, which again may take on further accretions from one of the Evangelists or their literary sources.  This last set of accretions are termed “redactions,” which reflect the favorite themes of Evangelists or teaching concerns within their audiences and churches (e.g., Matthew’s Jewish audience or Luke’s Gentile audience).  The attempt to identify these redactions is appropriately called “redaction criticism.”
+Form criticism is a method<ref>Form criticism was originally developed for Old Testament exegesis by Hermann Gunkel. It was further supplemented by Martin Noth and Gerhard von Rad (for the Old Testament) and then was applied to the Gospels by Karl Ludwig Schmidt, and later by Martin Dibelius, Rudolf Bultmann, C.H. Dodd, and others. It had some excesses in its early formulations which have been tempered and corrected by sound historical analysis, particularly by C.H. Dodd, Joachim Jeremias, and more recently by John P. Meier and N.T. Wright). Detailed descriptions of the contributions of each of these well-known scholars may be found in any standard introduction to the Old or New Testament.</ref> which classifies units of scripture by literary pattern (e.g., parables or exhortations, or, with respect to Jesus’ miracles, exorcism stories, healing stories, stories about raising from the dead, or nature miracle stories).  It seeks to identify its various layers of oral transmission.  It begins with a formulaic presentation given in the New Testament which has consistent identifiable features.  It then works its way back through the various strands of oral transmission to a very primitive form of the story which was witnessed and probably well-known in the town or district in which it occurred.  Thus, form criticism assumes that as an account is orally transmitted from the time of its historical core, it takes on accretions which correspond to the teaching needs of its transmitters in the early Church.  Finally, it takes on a standard form with particular identifiable elements, which is then fashioned into a written account, which again may take on further accretions from one of the Evangelists or their literary sources.  This last set of accretions are termed “redactions,” which reflect the favorite themes of Evangelists or teaching concerns within their audiences and churches (e.g., Matthew’s Jewish audience or Luke’s Gentile audience).  The attempt to identify these redactions is appropriately called “redaction criticism.”
 The job of the exegete is first to peel back the layer of redactions and then peel back the layers of the oral tradition to reveal the primitive core story which would have been witnessed and popularly known within a particular district.  If the exegete is fortunate, there may be some clues to this, such as Semitisms which reveal an early Aramaic narrative (which, in turn, reveals an early Palestinian origin).  There may be other clues which the above-mentioned historical criteria can reveal.  For example, the criterion of discontinuity (e.g., an incident which is embarrassing to the apostles or early Church, or would seem to undermine the reputation of Jesus) may be present, which very probably indicates an early origin, because it can hardly be thought that such incidents would be added to the oral tradition or to the written tradition.  Why would any of the Evangelists add an incident which undermines Jesus’ reputation to a story which originally did not have it?
@@ Line 116: / Line 116: @@
 For example, Mark’s story of Jesus’ exorcism of a demoniac boy includes a part about the apostles being unable to cast out the demon.  This is not part of the standard form of exorcism stories, and it presents an embarrassment to the apostles (which is not relevant to Mark’s teaching or catechetical purpose, and so is unlikely to be a Marcan redaction); therefore historians may reasonably conclude that it was not gratuitously added to the exorcism story, and very likely goes back to a primitive tradition grounded in history.
 The above five techniques are used in Unit II-F (on Jesus’ miracles) and Unit II-G (on Jesus’ self-revelation).  The criterion of sufficient and necessary reason will be used in Unit II-D with respect to Jesus’ resurrection.  These techniques can be used in other New Testament contexts, and can be applied to other non-biblical historical texts.
 == Is There Evidence for Jesus’ Divinity? ==

@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 . The testimony of Flavius Josephus (Jewish historian writing for a Roman audience in 93 A.D.) which attests to Jesus’ miraculous power and His sentencing and crucifixion (see Unit II-F, Section I.):
-Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles…And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross…And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
+<blockquote>Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles…And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross…And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.</blockquote>
 . The testimony of the Babylonian Talmud (written between 70 to 200 A.D. in which Jesus is mentioned under four different names, several time).

← Older revision	Revision as of 16:10, 27 July 2011
(No difference)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:01, 27 July 2011
Line 210:		Line 210:

	<references />		<references />
		+
		+	Josephus 1965, 18:3.3.
		+
		+	See Babylonian Talmud; “Sanhedrin” 43a.
		+
		+	Cited in Kirby 2006.
		+
		+	Meier 1999, pp. 476-77.
		+
		+	Since the time of Aristotle, it has been widely known that the following syllogism is fallacious. “If A, then B. Not A. Therefore, not B.” So also the syllogism, “If multiple attestation, then historically probable. Not multiple attestation. Therefore, not historically probable.”
		+
		+	See McArthur 1969(b), pp. 139-140.
		+
		+	This criterion is used with respect to second-Temple Judaism in Wright’s argument for the historicity of the resurrection in Unit II-D.
		+
		+	Latourelle notes the universal acceptance of this criterion by the entire spectrum of exegetical interpretation: “It is accepted by Bultmann, Kasemann, Conzelmann, Bornkamm, Jeremias, Perrin, McArthur, Dahl, Mussner, Trilling, Shurmann, Rigaux, Cerfaux, Leon-Dufour, Caba, Lentzen-Deis, de la Potterie, Calvert, Zedda, Lambiasi, McEleney and Schillebeeckx” (Latourelle 1979, p. 223).
		+
		+	Latourelle 1979, p. 224. See also Jeremias 1971, Chapter 1.
		+
		+	See Latourelle 1979, pp. 224-225, and Jeremias 1971.
		+
		+	See Latourelle 1979, p. 225.
		+
		+	See Unit II-D.
		+
		+	Raymond Brown asks the logical question: “Why was this title so massively retrojected, being placed on Jesus’ lips on a scale far outdistancing the retrojection of “the Messiah,” “the Son of God,” and “the Lord”? (Brown 1994(a), p. 90).
		+
		+	Rigaux 1958.
		+
		+	Latourelle 1979, p. 227.
		+
		+	Even Bultmann and Perrin acknowledge that this use of the criterion of coherence is valid in limited ways. (See Bultmann 1960; and Perrin 1967 and 1976.) In so doing, they also acknowledge the validity of the criterion of discontinuity. Joachim Jeremias gives the most thoughtful and comprehensive use of this criterion in his groundbreaking analysis of the historicity of the parables of the kingdom. (See Jeremias 1972.)
		+
		+	Latourelle 1979, p. 228.
		+
		+	Latourelle 1979, p.229.
		+
		+	Form criticism was originally developed for Old Testament exegesis by Hermann Gunkel. It was further supplemented by Martin Noth and Gerhard von Rad (for the Old Testament) and then was applied to the Gospels by Karl Ludwig Schmidt, and later by Martin Dibelius, Rudolf Bultmann, C.H. Dodd, and others. It had some excesses in its early formulations which have been tempered and corrected by sound historical analysis, particularly by C.H. Dodd, Joachim Jeremias, and more recently by John P. Meier and N.T. Wright). Detailed descriptions of the contributions of each of these well-known scholars may be found in any standard introduction to the Old or New Testament.
		+
		+	Wright 2003, p. 729.
		+
		+	Dunn 1975, p. 170.
		+
		+	For a general context in which these events occurred, see Dunn 1991, Hengel 1980, and Wright 1996.
		+
		+	Jeremias 1958 and Küng 1978, p. 371.