Chapter 338 of 404

Notes to Chapter 4

1 Crossan, Historical Jesus, 395, 415.

2 Stanton, Gospel Truth, 95.

3 Evans, Fabricating Jesus, 56.

4 We have already noted the Jesus Seminar, which includes Gospel of Thomas among the “five Gospels.” More surprising is the dating of sources in Crossan, Historical Jesus, 427-30, assigning Gospel of Thomas and the “Cross Gospel” in Gospel of Peter a date before 60 CE, Secret Mark before Mark in the period 60-80 CE, and Matthew and Luke in the 90s (with the first version of John in the early second century).

5 Evans, Fabricating Jesus, 98. DeConick, Translation, 7, who does accept a first-century “kernel” to Thomas, warns against “the tendency” of some “to identify” “Thomas’ theology” with that of Jesus.

6 Evans, Fabricating Jesus, 98.

7 Its possibly revisionist portrait of Judas may address only a minor point in the earlier gospel tradition, but this point would fit the broader revisionist agenda and readings of gnosticism.

8 The manuscript we have dates to between 300 and 350 (Porter and Heath, Gospel of Judas, 79); the content cannot easily predate the late second century (for its genre as gnostic rehabilitation literature, see Porter and Heath, Gospel of Judas, 80-89; for its dependence on NT material, see pp. 90-95). For one summary of the work and what can be known about it, see Perkins, Introduction to Gospels, 278-81. The Coptic may undermine scholars’ initial “heroic” reading. Judas plays a heroic role in Toledot Yeshu (on which see e.g., Heindl, “Rezeption”; contrast the Gospel of Barnabas), but this work is still later.

9 Dan Brown’s claim of 80 gospels destroyed by Constantine is fiction (happily the most extravagant statements in the Da Vinci Code are attributed to one who turns out to be an unreliable character). This complaint is not intended to deny early traditions about Constantine’s zeal. Eusebius Life of Constantine reports that Constantine destroyed idolatrous temples in 3.54-56; banished “false prophets” in 3.63; deprived heretics of meeting places in 3.65; and in 3.66 searched for heretical books (perhaps including magical books, pagan Sibylline prophecies, and so forth).

10 In this chapter, I draw on my treatments especially in John, 34-37, 161-69; also idem, “Lost Gospels.”

11 Her. 3.11.8-9. Indeed, Irenaeus’ working canon differs only marginally from the later one, since he failed to use only 3 Jn, Jms and 2 Pet (Chadwick, Church, 81). Some even find the fourfold Gospel presupposed in the early second century longer ending of Mark (Parsons, Acts, 14, cites Kelhoffer Miracle).

12 Contrasting the early established Christian traditions with the so-called gnostic Gospels, Perkins, Introduction to Gospels, 293, offers one answer to those wondering if these other works should be welcomed into the canon: “the simplest response is, ‘Take a copy of the Gospel of (whatever the news flash of the week is) home. Try reading it silently and out loud to someone in your family. Then tell me.’” She notes she has never had any “votes” for their canonicity after that. This argument may presuppose an established Christian tradition, but as we have argued, one did exist before these works were composed.

13 “Gnostic Gospels” may be generally a misnomer (see Perkins, Introduction to Gospels, 280- 81), though it is difficult to know what else to call them. A significant number of the works in this category, however, have gnostic elements, the point we are making.

14 Charlesworth and Evans, “Agrapha,” 491.

15 See Wright, “Apocryphal Gospels”; cf. Burkitt, Sources, 17; Dibelius, Jesus, 20; Sanders, Figure, 64. A non-gospel narrative, Acts of Paul and Thecla, may reflect some of the same trends as appear in Montanism; reports of Maximilla’s and Priscilla’s adherence to Montanus (cf. Euseb. H.E. 5.16) resemble that of chaste women in these texts who leave husbands to cleave to ministers of the word.

16 Jeremias, Unknown Sayings, 18-19; compare the function of some Jewish haggadic works above.

17 Cf. Aune, Environment, 151-53, especially on apocryphal acts; cf. Bauckham and Porter, “Apocryphal Gospels,” 71. Koester, “One Jesus,” 158-59, overly skeptical about the canonical gospels, finds barely any historical truth in the apocryphal ones. For further discussion of the genre differences between the “canonical” and “apocryphal” gospels, see Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 201; Bauckham and Porter, “Apocryphal Gospels,” 71.

18 See Wiersma, “Novel.”

19 Novels were largely non-referential (Konstan, “Invention,” 5-6). The recycling of a story line (cf. Lucian’s Lucius and Apuleius’ Metam.) suggests limits to this distinction, but the point is that the novelist cannot be described as “mistaken” about his claims, since (far more than historians and mythographers) the novelist has control over the work’s narrative world.

20 Cf. Charlesworth and Evans, “Agrapha,” 491-95 (including also some Nag Hammadi works).

21 E.g., Lucian Hist. 12, who distinguishes proper biography from falsification and flattery; Plut. Poetry 2, Mor. 16F, who points to fabricated materials in poetry (quite different from how he describes his sources in the Lives). See Mosley, “Reporting,” 26; Kany, “Bericht”; Witherington, Acts, 25-26.

22 Bowersock’s examples of fictitionalized history (Fiction as History, 21) are distinctly novelistic; historical fictions (like Xen. Cyr.; Ps.-Callisth. Alex., the latter four to eight centuries after Alexander) were exceptional and fairly transparent.

23 Carson, John, 64-65, following Sternberg, Poetics, 23-35.

24 Aune, Environment, 151-52; Lalleman, “Apocryphal Acts,” 67; Rebenich, “Historical Prose,” 307-8; Bauckham, “Acts of Paul”; Keylock, “Distinctness,” 210; Krasser, “Reading,” 554; Hofmann, “Novels: Christian,” 846-48; Perkins, “World.” Pervo, “Fabula,” compares the apocryphal acts with the Aesop Romance. Cf. n. 17, above.

25 Pervo, Profit, 130.

26 Hofmann, “Novels: Christian,” 847.

27 See Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 322. Perhaps the apocryphal acts originated partly through Christians reading romances through Christian lenses, seeing what they could make use of (see Price, “Evolution of Genres”).

28 Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 10. Pervo, “Hard Act,” sees Acts of Paul not as a sequel to Luke-Acts (against Bauckham, “Acts of Paul”) but as an attempt to correct it; clearly it rewrites some of Acts’ narratives, but this may be for hagiographic development rather than rejection (see Marguerat, “L’héritage”; idem, “Acts of Paul”; cf. idem, Histoire, 369-91). Although some think Acts of Paul dependent only on Galatians (Rordorf, “Conversion,” 142-43, highlighting Acts’ details missing in the later work), most have argued otherwise (e.g., Hills, “Acts and Acts”; Pervo, “Hard Act”; Bauckham, “Acts of Paul” and idem, “Sequel”; cf. Hills, “Acts of Paul”), especially regarding imitation of Acts’ perceived primary subject (not so much its content). The particular dating of the post-Lukan acts is more problematic; their relative sequence also occasions debate (e.g., MacDonald, “Relationships,” 40; Pervo, “Egging,” 55; Stoops, “Acts of Peter,” 83-84).

29 On Paul in the apocryphal acts, see Michaels, “Paul in Tradition,” especially 692-94. On Paul and Luke’s Acts, see esp. Porter, Paul in Acts; Harnack, Acts, 264-74; Campbell, “Journeys”; cf. Talbert, Mediterranean Milieu, 205-6.

30 Justin 1 Apol. 66.3; 67.3; Dial. 103.8; 106.3 (see Stanton, New People, 62-63; Abramowski, “Memoirs,” pace Koester).

31 Infancy Story of Thomas 4.1-5.1.

32 Infancy Story of Thomas 2.2-4.

33 Infancy Story of Thomas 9.1-3.

34 On apocryphal gospels of various varieties, Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 199-203.

35 Against the “alternative gospel theorists,” P. Egerton depends on canonical gospels, reflecting even Matthean and Lukan redaction (Charlesworth and Evans, “Agrapha,” 514-25; Evans, Fabricating Jesus, 85-92, esp. 89; though Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 329, who dates it c. 150 CE, allows its independence).

36 Voorst, Jesus Outside NT, 209, notes that apart from H. Koester and J. D. Crossan, most scholars remain skeptical.

37 Crossan dates it to the 50s of the first century (Historical Jesus, 429). For skepticism regarding its antiquity, see e.g., Allison, Jesus of Nazareth, 17.

38 Evans, Fabricating Jesus, 79-85. On the Gospel of Peter and its hypothetical “Cross Gospel,” see views in Brown, Death, 1317-49; Meier, Marginal Jew, 1:117-18.

39 Wright, “Apologetic”; cf. Jeremias, Unknown Sayings, 17. Most of the Jesus Seminar apparently have not found the Gospel of Peter very historical (see Funk et al., Acts of Jesus, 441-48).

40 Charlesworth and Evans, “Agrapha,” 511. Voorst, Jesus Outside NT, 209, notes that whereas Crossan offers no sustained source-critical analysis supporting its antiquity, critics of this work’s antiquity (such as Raymond Brown) do offer source-critical arguments. Ehrman, Prophet, 69-70, however, thinks the work depends on “popular traditions” rather than the written Gospels themselves, since it left out so much; nevertheless, he agrees that it is later than they.

41 E.g., the Acts of Pilate; so Quarles, “Gospel of Peter,” 119, also noting other second-century features; cf. Charlesworth and Evans, “Agrapha,” 507.

42 Evans, Fabricating Jesus, 83 (citing G. Pet. 8.31; 10.38); cf. Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus, 50; Jos. Ant. 18.38; m. Nazir 3:5; 7:3; Mekilta Pisha 1.83-84. Tannaim thought that only imbeciles slept in cemeteries (tos. Ter. 1:3). Cf. also the Jewish leaders’ confession (7.25; 11.48), noted by Evans, Fabricating Jesus, 82-83.

43 Jeremias, Unknown Sayings, 18; Burridge, Gospels, 249-50; Wright, People of God, 410-11.

44 Though Mack, Lost Gospel, 6, appeals to the massive number of agrapha, most appear in late documents, and even the small number of agrapha accepted by Jeremias are at most possibly authentic (Meier, Marginal Jew, 1:113; Voorst, Jesus Outside NT, 179-85; Charlesworth and Evans, “Agrapha,” 483-91, esp. 487, 491). Our very inability to distinguish accurate and inaccurate agrapha underlines the value of our earlier written documents (Hofius, “Sayings”). See Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 28-29, for summary and secondary sources discussing these 266 sayings.

45 Jeremias, Unknown Sayings, 26-28; on Thomas, cf. ibid., 18; Stanton, Gospels, 129; Chilton, “Thomas,” 171; Blomberg, “Thomas,” 195-196; idem, “Studying Jesus,” 24; Wright, People of God, 437- 43. See Stanton, Jesus of Nazareth, 129-35, who addresses very significant contrasts between the canonical Gospels and the Gospel of Thomas (which itself is closer to our canonical samples than other Nag Hammadi material is). Although the Gospel of Thomas apparently contains Aramaisms of some sort (DeConick, Recovering, 243-44; idem, Translation, 11-15, argues even for an Aramaic original of the basic core source), like the Synoptics, this claim is not made for most gnostic “gospels.”

46 Platonic thought was a key and frequent element; later Egyptian gnosticism also integrated elements of Egyptian paganism. Jewish mysticism may have played a role in gnosticism’s formation, despite the anti-Judaism of some segments of gnosticism. Yet some of these circles (especially in the second century) were closer to the “orthodox” and lines were not always clearly drawn (note e.g., Clement of Alexandria).

47 E.g., Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 198.

48 Perhaps related to the tradition of Jewish mysticism, to the Greek Mysteries, or to both. Deprecation of the body may also have contributed to deprecation of public knowledge.

49 Note that we are not denying that many traditions could be passed on accurately this late (see our discussion about oral tradition later in the book). Rather, we are denying that gnostics wanted to use so much of the church’s common tradition, at least without introducing more philosophically satisfactory correctives. But gnosticism by its character was more interested in cosmology than in history or historical particularity.

50 Conzelmann, Theology, 11; Jonas, Religion, 32-33; Bousset, Kyrios Christos, 187, 245. For a survey of the view’s development, see Yamauchi, Gnosticism, 21-24; Ridderbos, Paul, 27-28.

51 See Lohse, Environment, 255.

52 For gnosticism’s debt to earlier Christianity, see Wilson, Gnostic Problem, 68, 256; Yamauchi, Gnosticism, 20; Burkitt, Gnosis, viii; Grant, Gnosticism, 13-14. For one recent reading of gnostic development, see Smith, Gnostic Origins.

53 Some (not all) of the texts reflect the completed Synoptics (esp. the most popular, Matthew), but never clearly pre-Synoptic tradition (Tuckett, Nag Hammadi, 149, 155, 158-59).

54 One might contrast the rabbinic corpus, dating from a period when knowledge of Christianity was inevitable, but which mentions followers of Jesus only fairly rarely (for examples, see e.g., Herford, Christianity) and of course includes no Christian documents.

55 MacRae, “Gnosticism”; Evans, “Prologue,” 395. Koester, Introduction, 2:211, gives Hypostasis of the Archons as an example of reworked material.

56 Wilson, “Nag Hammadi”; cf. “The Testimony of Truth,” in NHLE, 406.

57 Goppelt, Theology, 1:17-18; Bruce, “Myth,” 92; Brown, John, 1:LV; cf. idem, “Thomas,” 155-77; Stark, “Empire.”

58 See the summary in Yamauchi, Gnosticism, 71.

59 Kilpatrick, “Background,” 40-41; this is based on an incomplete but representative sampling of Septuagintal vocabulary.

60 Kilpatrick, “Background,” 43.

61 See e.g., Wahlde, “Archaeology”; Hunter, “Trends.”

62 Funk et al., Gospels, 15.

63 See e.g., Tuckett, “Sources and methods,” 130 (suggesting that saying 82 may reflect a wider tradition); Charlesworth and Evans, “Agrapha,” 502; Barnett, Jesus and History, 26-27.

64 Stanton, Gospel Truth, 87; Wright, People of God, 437-43; Lüdemann, Two Thousand Years, 589 (though he dates Thomas as early as 125 CE); cf. Bruce, Origins, 155. DeConick argues for Syrian “orthodox” rather than a “gnostic” reading (Recovering, 235, 241-42; idem, Translation, 5-7); I believe that this view would lead to the same conclusion regarding the finished work’s date (though DeConick, Recovering, 240, dates it at 120 CE at the latest). “Gnostic” is admittedly a slippery category.

65 Scholars starting with expertise in gnostic documents tend to be readier to find gnosticizing elements in first-century sources. While elements of later gnosticism were in fact widespread, scholars starting with expertise in public Greco-Roman sources (philosophy, rhetoric, and so forth) tend to distinguish the later, Christian phenomenon of gnosticism from such elements (since later movements regularly develop tendencies of earlier thought).

66 For one recent and pointed critique of using second-century sources, including Thomas, for reconstructing the Jesus tradition, see Meier, Marginal Jew, 1:112-66; for a critique of the thesis of pre-Christian gnosticism, see Yamauchi, Gnosticism.

67 With e.g., Heyer, Jesus Matters, 103; Wright, “Seminar,” 92. Smith, “Scripture,” 14, notes that whereas Matthew and Luke connect intertextually with the Hebrew canon in such a way as to carry on Jewish Scripture, Thomas reflects a “new, esoteric religion.”

68 For different proposed genres for Q, see e.g., Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 390-92.

69 E.g., Meier, Marginal Jew, 1:123-39; Tuckett, “Thomas and Synoptics”; Tuckett, “Thomas: Evidence”; idem, Tuckett, “Sources and methods,” 130; Perrin, Thomas and Tatian, 185-88; Charlesworth and Evans, “Agrapha,” 498-500; Evans, Fabricating Jesus, 67-72; McClymond, Stranger, 32; cf. Stegemann, “Jesus,” 1182. The consensus is summarized e.g., in Blomberg, “Studying Jesus,” 23-25. Although an oral tradition approach challenges traditional redactional approaches (DeConick, Translation, 16), observations about even probable redaction shift the burden of proof. There are detractors (cf. the “camps” noted in Perrin, Thomas and Tatian, 14); at a high level of sophistication, DeConick, Translation, 15-24, seeks to balance evidence for independence and dependence. Some (noted in Perrin, Thomas and Tatian, 174-75) attribute parallels with M and L material to later stages in Thomas’s composition; such an attribution, however, constitutes an appeal to a hypothetical source that assumes what one hopes to prove. Nevertheless, in the final analysis, even among scholars who see some early traditions in Thomas, very few hold that Thomas itself actually predates the Synoptics (see Johnson, Real Jesus, 89).

70 Perrin, Thomas and Tatian, 3. Perrin contends that Thomas employs mainly written rather than oral sources (Thomas and Tatian, 181-83).

71 Admittedly most scholars (including myself) have not done the detailed work on Thomas that specialist Thomas scholars like April DeConick (who has provided substantive and careful analysis of Thomas traditions) has, and my conclusions here are not comparable in documentation to those I offer in the following chapters. DeConick argues for gradual accretions in Thomas, from a bulk of sayings (with many Q parallels, e.g., DeConick, Recovering, 243; Translation, 7-8) 40-50 CE (for one clear summary, see Translation, 10). Her work may offer the best chance of identifying some earlier material in Thomas, if anything can. I am not drawing on it here, however (useful though it might be if correct), for the same reason I do not engage in source-criticism of Mark or “Q” (in contrast to reconstructing Q from the concrete documents Matthew and Luke): the cumulative level of uncertainty seems too risky for the sort of work I am attempting here. That is not to say that scholars should not attempt such hypothetical analyses, only to explain why I am not exploring them in a work like this one. I concede that my own work has been influenced by narrative-critical skepticism about source criticism beyond a certain point (a reaction against some earlier source criticism’s excesses).

72 Perrin, Thomas and Tatian, 4-5, even contends that most scholars accept a Syrian, or even Edessene, provenance. He also notes (6-7) that many have seen Syriac as the original language, though (7-8) most have thought Greek its original language.

73 Perrin, Thomas and Tatian, 49, 57-155, 171; idem, “Overlooked Evidence,” 143-44; followed by Evans, Fabricating Jesus, 73. Perrin grants the possibility of a different Aramaic dialect, but believes that Syriac explains more of the evidence (“Overlooked Evidence,” 139; Thomas and Tatian, 19-47, esp. 46). He argues that Syriac’s “range of lexicological options” limits the problems of back translation (Perrin, Thomas and Tatian, 54). In Thomas and Tatian, 155, he notes that in Coptic, there are a total of 269 catchwords; in Greek, 263; but in Syriac, 502; he observes (156) we know of no non-Syriac text that, converted into Syriac, would produce these results.

74 In Syriac, e.g., Ephrem (Thomas and Tatian, 158) and Odes of Solomon (159-62); Thomas often uses the same puns as Odes of Solomon (162). Such connections are often especially common in collections of secret revelation (164-68). Thomas apparently generates the catchwords by the traditional “exegetical principle” of linking keywords (175); sometimes it modifies sayings to create a connection (176-80). DeConick, Recovering, 48, attributes such catchwords to oral tradition.

75 Only in Syriac the same term can represent “soul” or the reflexive, relevant to two of three cases in Thomas (Thomas and Tatian, 156-57); “wealth” and “place,” which pun in Syriac, often appear together (157), as do “hate” and “flesh”; “fruit” and “father”; and so forth (157).

76 Thomas and Tatian, 156 (noting Thomas 10; 11.3; 82; 83.1, 2).

77 Thomas and Tatian, 171.

78 Thomas and Tatian, 172.

79 A Syriac original explains the divergence between Greek and Coptic versions (Perrin, “Overlooked Evidence,” 144-50). Textual evidence survived especially in Egypt, but Perrin’s inferential evidence to this effect appears persuasive.

80 Perrin, Thomas and Tatian, 15-16. His focus on the Diatessaron’s wording (Thomas and Tatian, 55) might prejudice the case in favor of finding parallels.

81 Perrin, Thomas and Tatian, 16. Others (e.g., Heyer, Jesus Matters, 104; DeConick, below) also note Thomas’ affinities with the Diatessaron.

82 Evans, Fabricating Jesus, 73-76, arguing that the Syrian evidence refutes the attempts of Crossan and others to find an early source here.

83 See discussion in Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 127.

84 DeConick, Translation, 20-21, thinks that probably “an early form of the Gospel of Thomas . . . was known in Syria to Tatian” (quoting 21; cf. Recovering, 242-43). But Tatian does not use this source in his harmony; why would it influence him so much? At the same time, a common Syriac tradition behind both (whether shaped by “Thomas” traditions or a gospel tradition that led to both) is plausible (see discussion below).

85 DeConick, Recovering, 48, warns that it is difficult to imagine an original Syriac work translated into Coptic in time for a manuscript of 200 CE. We have a fragment of John dating to within possibly a generation of its composition (see Roberts, Fragment; also discussion in e.g., Dibelius, Jesus, 13; Clark, “Criticism,” 27; Metzger, “Papyri,” 40), but no translation was needed in that case.

86 Quispel’s argument noted in Perrin, Thomas and Tatian, 184-85. Most of Perrin’s argument (from catchwords and explanations for translation variants) in fact involves a Syriac origin; only a comparatively small part of his argument involves the Diatessaron per se. But Perrin, Thomas and Tatian, 183-84, correctly observes that the Diatessaron is the only known (written) Syriac gospel in the second century.

87 Perrin, “Overlooked Evidence,” 151, argues that Thomas reveals “more about early Syriac Christianity than about the oral traditions handed down from Jesus.”

88 Perrin, Thomas and Tatian, 5-6, notes that the most widespread consensus date has been c. 140 CE (e.g., Heyer, Jesus Matters, 104). Stegemann, “Jesus,” 1182, suggests that it is no later than 140; Lüdemann, Two Thousand Years, 589, dates it earlier, c. 125; DeConick, Recovering, 240, to no later than 120 CE.

89 Scribal variation of course still occurred, but the basic forms were stable (our early-second-century fragment of John is identical with our received text), and early-second-century patristic sources used Synoptic material. Contrary to what several scholars have argued, a degree of textual fluidity is not a problem identical to a document’s thorough expansion (on some views of Thomas) or creation (on others). Even if we accept development of a core in Thomas, even the Western text of Acts includes less revision than we would have to envision for Thomas here.

90 Gospel of Thomas 114 (NHL p. 130).

91 Philo Embassy 320.

92 Thomas’ approach, however, is probably reacting against earlier eschatology; see Tuckett, “Thomas: Evidence”; Allison, Jesus of Nazareth, 124. DeConick even argues that the earliest core of Thomas material was eschatological (Recovering, 130-55, 236, 239-40; Translation, 25-26, 30-31).

93 Cf. the largely black color coding for John in Funk et al., Acts of Jesus, 365-440 (though few narratives fare well in that book); idem, Gospels, 401-70. Thomas, with more Synoptic-like sayings, fares better (Funk et al., Gospels, 471-532).

94 Some treat John’s eschatology as wholly realized (e.g., Käsemann, Testament, 15-16, 20); a more nuanced position is that it is mostly realized (Schweizer, Jesus, 164-68; for some future eschatology, see e.g., Kümmel, Theology, 294-95; Lindars, Behind, 66; Barrett, John, 68-69; Moule, “Factor,” 159; Kysar, Maverick Gospel, 87, 110; Schlier, “Begriff,” 268). Some have sought to find in John’s realized eschatology the original point of Jesus (cf. Dodd, Preaching, 75; Glasson, Advent, 222-25; Robinson, Coming, 163), but Jesus’ eschatology probably included both elements. Qumran blended realized and future eschatology (Aune, Eschatology, 29-44), and even Philo (who tends toward realized eschatology) had hope for Israel’s restoration (Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 86).

95 Possibly including the Gospel of the Nazarenes (P. Vielhauer in New Testament Apocrypha, ed. Hennecke, 1:144), though this may be a secondary expansion of Matthew into Aramaic (Meier, Marginal Jew, 1:116).

96 Talbert, Gospel, 8-9. Later Koester came to view the canonical Gospels as “aretalogical biographies.”

97 Cf. Hadas and Smith, Heroes.

98 Shuler, Genre, 15-20; cf. Talbert, Gospel, 12-13; Klauck, Religious Context, 167-68. A more general proposal of aretalogical biographies (Wills, Quest) would be more reasonable.

99 Burridge, Gospels, 18-19; Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 57 (following Winkler, Auctor, 236). Talbert, Gospel, 43, cites biographies of immortals (mainly from the second and third centuries), but as he admits, the religious or mythical dimension does not affect genre (cf. Shuler, Genre, 21); his evidence for specific cultic biographies (Talbert, Gospel, 91-113) is mainly inferential (Aune, “Problem,” 37-42).

100 That Aboth and most wisdom literature share the same rhetorical forms (Gottlieb, “Abot”) supports the likelihood that many early sages like Jesus spoke and were understood in part as wisdom teachers.

101 Cf. Keener, John, 35-36.

102 With Perrin, Thomas and Tatian, 9-10; Evans, Fabricating Jesus, 76.

103 These could belong to a different source than most of the other shared material, but they fall at the same points in the narrative, with the healing of the centurion’s servant virtually immediately following the sermon on the plain/mount. Funk et al., Acts of Jesus, 41-49, does find brief narrative segments in the larger “Q.”

104 Kelber, Gospel, 199-211; Boring, Sayings, 201-3, provide examples of this earlier approach. Contrast Gundry, “Genre,” 103-7; more fully, Byrskog, Story as History, 107-44 (esp. 128-30, noting that oral historiography does not oppose written sources).

105 E.g., episodes from Aesop’s life in a collection of his fables (Phaed. 2.9.1-4); cf. the combination of sayings and deeds in Diog. Laert. Sayings could also be reported from separate sources in a biography after narrating the rest of a “life,” without implying that the two genres were contradictory (e.g., Plut. Timoleon 15.1; Philost. Lives 2.5.574); most often biographies included both (Val. Max. 1.pref.1).

106 Cf. Lindenberger, “Ahiqar,” 480-82.

107 Although rhetoric teachers formally distinguished sayings-chreiai and action-chreiai, they also formally recognized mixed chreiai, which included both (Theon Progymn. 3.22-23); sayings-chreiai also could include both statement and response (Progymn. 3.27-28). On combining sayings and narrative, see also Theon Progymn. 4.73-79.

108 Richardson and Gooch, “Logia,” 52.

109 Stanton, Gospel Truth, 77-95; Sanders, Figure, 64. Most of the material that is most defensible depends on the canonical Gospels; see Meier, Marginal Jew, 1:114-23.

110 With e.g., Behr, “Taught,” 32. The fiction of “secret” traditions works much better for originally secretive groups like Pythagoreans (cf. Iamblichus V.P. 35.252-53, 258-60) than where something like the public apostolic tradition was already in place. The less widely known a claim was, the more subject to suspicion it would be (Xen. Ages. 5.6).

111 See Burridge, Gospels, 249-50; Wright, People of God, 410-11; also Smith, “Scripture,” 13-14 (noting that it cannot be construed, unlike the Synoptics and John, as seeking to continue the biblical story).

112 Charlesworth and Evans, “Agrapha,” 526-32; cf. Marcus, Mark, 47-51.

113 Cf. Jeffery, Secret Gospel, 247: “we were supposed to accept that these two fragments of the Secret Gospel, preserved only in an (allegedly) eighteenth-century copy, represented a text as early as, or even earlier than, any canonical New Testament writing.”

114 Stanton, Gospel Truth, 93; Neusner, “Foreword,” xxvii; cf. Losie, “Gospel.” Brown, Death, 297, dates it earlier, to c. 125.

115 As late as the 1700s some writers followed the ancient convention of pretending to translate ancient writings seen by no one else (Lefkowitz, Africa, 111); for a Gospel forgery from 1860, see Millard, Reading and Writing, 53. For one popular retelling of the “Piltdown Man” forgery or hoax that misled many earlier paleontologists for four decades, see Millar, Piltdown Men (though Millar favored Grafton Elliot Smith as the culprit, there has been no consensus).

116 Carlson, Hoax, 35-40.

117 Carlson, Hoax, 49-64; also Jeffery, Secret Gospel, 41, 99 (citing others’ observations that it provides much more distinctively Clementine vocabulary than Clement’s normal passages do).

118 Carlson, Hoax, 65-71. Jeffery, Secret Gospel, 55-70 (cf. also 71-90), finds there elements of Smith’s Anglican liturgical background; it does not fit second-century Alexandrian liturgy, and Smith misunderstood eastern liturgy (cf. 123-48).

119 For this and other features suggesting forgery, see Carlson, Hoax, 26-35.

120 Carlson, Hoax, 42-47, esp. 46-47; Evans, Fabricating Jesus, 96-97. It also contains some obscure information on which Smith had previously published (Carlson, Hoax, 71-72). Jeffery, Secret Gospel, suggests other cases of Smith’s deception (e.g., 127, 134, 147, although these cases might reflect simply a shift in perspective), sexual humor (e.g., 128-29), misreading another culture in light of his own (132-33, 136-44), and agendas powerful enough to seriously distort data (144-45).

121 Jeffery, Secret Gospel, 119, 121.

122 See Jeffery, Secret Gospel, 49-50, 185-212, 248. Jeffery also notes that the Mar Saba text’s portrayal of homosexuality better fits “the ‘Uranian’ homosexual subculture of nineteenth-century English universities” than its putative context (Secret Gospel, 225; the entire argument is 213-25). For the reversal of Smith’s own position (and his movement from an Anglo-Catholic to his belief that early Christianity was a conspiratorial construct), see Jeffery, Secret Gospel, 149-84.

123 Jeffery, Secret Gospel, argues that Smith composed the work to defend homosexual love against traditional Christian views (119-21, 239, 242-43, 247).

124 Jeffery, Secret Gospel, 226-39, 241-42, citing Oscar Wilde’s Salomé (note esp. the seven veils suggested in Smith’s document, 229, reflecting an image developed by Wilde, 227-28, and certainly known to Smith).

125 Evans, Fabricating Jesus, 97.

126 Lost Gospel, 248.

127 A basic principle of persuasion theory is that if one’s audience agrees with premise A and one seeks to persuade them of premise B, one may lump A and B together and call the resulting conglomeration “A.” Many persuasion theorists regard such doublespeak as unethical (cf. the example of transfer in Brembeck and Howell, Persuasion, 235).

128 See e.g., essays in Goodacre and Perrin, Questioning. In contrast to my own book, some major works on Jesus research (such as those of E. P. Sanders) rest nothing on the Q hypothesis, some of the authors (including again E. P. Sanders) finding the hypothesis (or significant elements of it) questionable.

129 Cf. the caution of Meier, Marginal Jew, 2:177: Q “is a hypothesis, and only a hypothesis”; similarly, Theissen, Gospels in Context, 204. Classicists had similar speculative hypotheses, eventually abandoned for lack of evidence (Kennedy, “Source Criticism,” 132).

130 E.g., Matt 8:5-13//Lk 7:1-10, following the same “Q” sermon of Jesus.

131 Cf. Dunn, New Perspective, 26-27, on the “one document per community” fallacy. For one challenge to the “community” approach, sometimes going further than I would go but certainly arguing better than Mack has argued here, see Bauckham, Gospels for Christians.

132 E.g., one would never guess from the two references to John in my first book (Marries Another) that I wrote it at the same time as my dissertation on John (“Pneumatology”; by contrast, I cited Matthew over 180 times in Marries Another, because Matthew was more relevant to the book’s subject).

133 Lost Gospel, 1.

134 Cf. e.g., Theissen, Gospels in Context, 206, 226, who admits the appearance of John, Jesus’ testing in the wilderness, and the centurion’s servant; Voorst, Jesus Outside NT, 163; Ehrman, Prophet, 82. The Jesus Seminar found such basic narratives in Q (Funk et al., Acts of Jesus, 41-50), though they accept few of them as authentic to Jesus.

135 Lost Gospel, 1-2.

136 Especially the basic narrative frames in Matt 4:1-11//Lk 4:1-12; Matt 8:5-13//Lk 7:1-10; and Matt 11:2-4//Lk 7:18-20. This is not to deny that Matthew and Luke show greater verbal agreement on sayings than on narrative, though even here the agreements are not precise.

137 Others also note that Q is eschatological in orientation (e.g., Smith, “Scripture,” 14).

138 Downing compares Q to Cynic Lives (“Like Q”; “Actuality”), but this comparison is too narrow (Tuckett, “Cynic Q”; cf. ancient biographies in general, treated later). Indeed, the original “Q” was probably Aramaic, fitting a Jewish and not a Cynic Jesus (see Casey, Aramaic Approach, 185, 190). Some doubt the Aramaic Q approach, however (Tuckett, “Q and Aramaic”). Some think that Paul needed to balance Jesus’ wisdom sayings with eschatology in Corinth in the 50s (Koester, “Silence,” 343-47).

139 Note this objection in Allison, Jesus of Nazareth, 123.

140 John Meier notes that some hold that the wisdom layer of Q is early while the prophetic material is later, and others hold the reverse. He registers his skepticism that one can separate Q into genuine chronological strata by such content-critical grounds (Meier, Marginal Jew, 1:178-80). See also Voorst, Jesus Outside NT, 166, also noting that A. Yarbro Collins and H. Koester find eschatological elements in every supposed stratum of Q. DeConick even argues that the earliest core of Thomas material was eschatological (Recovering, 130-55, 236, 239-40; Translation, 25-26, 30-31), warning that (Recovering, 243) “the vogue thesis that the early stratifications of Quelle were nonapocalyptic may need to be reassessed” (cf. further the critique of such trends in Recovering, 244-48).

141 Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus, 29.

142 E.g., Theissen, Gospels in Context, 204; Meier, Marginal Jew, 2:180; Voorst, Jesus Outside NT, 164-65; see further Boyd, Sage, 136-39; and Witherington, Sage, 215 (following R. A. Horsley).

143 Frye, “Analogies in Literatures,” 287.

144 For one discussion contrasting serial and cumulative probability, see Torrance, “Probability,” 257-58.

145 For additional comments on the discrepancy between Mack’s “authentic” data and the supposedly created material four times as large, see Blomberg, “Studying Jesus,” 22, who rightly notes the lack of any known historical parallel for “such a radical transformation of a famous teacher . . . in so short a period of time.”

146 Lost Gospel, 4-5.

147 Given some passages in the Septuagint; see also Suet. Claud. 25.4.

148 Sometimes where it does appear in Diaspora texts, as in some Sibylline Oracles or an oracle cited by Josephus, it is applied to a favorite pagan ruler like a Ptolemy or Roman emperor.

149 One might also ask what was so significant about Jesus as a sage for the putative “Q community” to have preserved his sayings. We do know, however, that schools often did preserve the teachings of their founders, so one need not infer messianic beliefs simply from the sayings collection.

150 Indeed, based on internal evidence, Meadors, “Orthodoxy,” argues that Q’s christology is essentially the same as Mark’s.

151 For a recent pointed critique of arguments from silence, see Brown, Death, 7-8.

152 Keck, “Ethos,” 435-52.

153 Keck, “Ethos,” 448. Keck remains correct that Q’s apparent lack of passion narrative (perhaps because of its specific focus) need not imply “that its church either had no passion story or no particular interest in it” (cf. also Voorst, Jesus Outside NT, 173-74). As Keck emphatically declares, “Not one bit of evidence has been adduced to show that such a conclusion is justified” (Keck, “Ethos,” 448).

154 Some other scholars in addition to Mack have questioned whether eschatological and wisdom sayings are compatible; see Crossan, Historical Jesus, 265-306. Crossan, “Necessary,” 32, envisions differences between the canonical “biographic” gospels and the noncanonical “discourse” gospels as indicating a war between two types of gospels.

155 Keck, “Ethos,” 448.

156 Keck, “Ethos,” 448-49.

157 E.g., Collins, “Wisdom”; Harrington, “Wisdom Texts”; VanderKam, “Mantic Wisdom.”

158 Witherington, Sage, 211-12.

159 Witherington, Sage, 233-36.

160 Witherington, Christology, 243, citing the Similitudes of Enoch; on 4Q300, see Schiffman, “4QMysteries.”

161 Pace Crossan, Historical Jesus, 288-91, who cites only extremely hellenized sources. Crossan likewise contrasts Paul’s apocalyptic Jesus with the Corinthians’ sapiential one (pp. 228-30), but Paul hardly rejects the sapiential (1 Cor 1:30; 8:5-6); nor does Jesus beginning a ministry distinct from John the Baptist support Crossan’s conclusion that Jesus must have rejected John’s apocalypticism (pp. 230- 38).

162 Cf. also Lost Gospel, 183.

163 Cf. e.g., the agreement of Matt 12:28//Lk 11:20 against Mk 3:26-27. Because Mark would abbreviate material for a concise introduction, it is possible that Mark also abbreviates Q in his introduction and follows Q in starting his narrative with John the Baptist. While some scholars, including myself, find such arguments for Mark’s use of “Q” persuasive, others demur (e.g., Marcus, Mark, 51-53, with reasonable arguments).

164 In fact, Q’s theology probably does not differ in significant (seriously conflicting) ways from Mark’s (Meadors, “Orthodoxy”; cf. Witherington, Sage, 233-36; see esp. Meadors, Herald).

165 Overman, “Deciphering,” 193.

166 For a fuller list, including second-century sources Pliny the Younger, Lucian, and Celsus; a first-century letter; and rabbinic sources, see Evans, Fabricating Jesus, 104-6; Eddy and Boyd, Legend, 172-84; Stein, Messiah, 25-28; in more detail, see Bruce, Origins, 19-65; Voorst, Jesus Outside NT, 19-74 for Gentile sources (noting on 74 that most view Jesus as a troublemaker), and 75-134 for Jewish ones; at medium length, Ehrman, Prophet, 56-59 (Gentile sources), 59-63 (Jewish ones); Bruggen, Narratives, 25-41 (Gentile sources in 25-29; Jewish in 29-41). One place Jesus does not appear, contrary to some earlier media reports, is the Qumran scrolls, most of which are too early (Voorst, Jesus Outside NT, 75-81).

167 Allison, “Thallus,” 405; Evans, “Non-Christian Sources,” 454-55. Eddy and Boyd, Legend, 172-73, regard this as of minimal value, though probably the earliest extant non-Christian source about Jesus. Although few pay attention to Tertullian’s claim (Apol. 5.1-2) that Tiberius heard about Jesus’ resurrection and wanted him viewed as a new divinity (the senate was not standing up to Tiberius much in 30 CE), Rizzo, “Tiberio,” takes this claim seriously.

168 Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus, 76-80 (suspecting the influence of Syrian Christans, 80); Evans, “Non-Christian Sources,” 455-57.

169 Evans, “Non-Christian Sources,” 458-64.

170 Evans, “Non-Christian Sources,” 454-64.

171 Tac. Ann. 15.44. See comment in Eddy and Boyd, Legend, 179-85; Evans, “Non-Christian Sources,” 464-66.

172 Suet. Claud. 25.4 (widely discussed; see e.g., Mattingly, Christianity, 30; Leon, Jews of Rome, 25; Harris, “References,” 353-54; I offer a wider range of interpretations in my Acts commentary at Acts 18:2).

173 With e.g., Eddy and Boyd, Legend, 167-68.

174 Though prominent in Josephus’ account of Caligula and even Claudius, in Tacitus Agrippa I appears in Tac. Ann. 12.23, a passing mention of his death in connection with the annexation of his territory to Syria.

175 Tac. Ann. 15.44.

176 See e.g., Just. Dial. 69:7; b. Sanh. 43a; 107b; Klausner, Jesus, 27-28, 49-51, 293; Dalman, Jesus in Talmud, 45-50; Herford, Christianity, 50-62; Gero, “Polemic”; Yamauchi, “Magic,” 90-91; Horbury, “Brigand”; Bruggen, Narratives, 37-41; Voorst, Jesus Outside NT, 104-34; Stanton, Gospel Truth, 156-58; Ehrman, Prophet, 62-63.

177 Probably due to his target audience’s displeasure with it in Rome (cf. Tac. Ann. 15.44; Suet. Claud. 25.4).

178 See Witherington, Christology, 83. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 395, n. 13, finds Jesus less influential than John in Josephus, but this tendency should take account of the reduction of the messianic element.

179 See Feldman, “David.”

180 On his likely mention of Jesus, see e.g., Thackeray, Josephus, 125; Klausner, Jesus, 55ff; Cornfeld, Josephus, 510; Meier, “Jesus in Josephus”; idem, “Testimonium”; Whealey, “Josephus”; Gramaglia, “Testamonium”; Paget, “Observations”; Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 79; Charlesworth, Jesus within Judaism, 90-98; idem, “Jesus, Literature, and Archaeology,” 189-92; Sanders, Figure, 50; Dubarle, “Témoignage”; Martínez, “Reevaluación”; Ehrman, Prophet, 59-62; Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus, 64-74; Voorst, Jesus outside NT, 81-104; Elledge, “Sources”; Evans, “Non-Christian Sources,” 466-68; Eddy and Boyd, Legend, 190-98; Flusser, Sage, 12. For earlier bibliographies of views, see Winter, “Bibliography”; Feldman, “Bibliography.”

181 To my knowledge, Bruggen, Narratives, 30-37, is the most effective defender of this option.

182 Betz, Jesus, 9-10; Feldman, “Methods,” 591.

183 Voorst, Jesus Outside NT, 93.

184 See here Charlesworth, Jesus within Judaism, 95-96; idem, “Jesus, Literature, and Archaeology,” 191-92; Evans, “Non-Christian Sources,” 468; Eddy and Boyd, Legend, 193-94.

185 Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 79.

186 The gospel tradition suggests a less emphatic hostility, but at least a mistrust, on the part of some of Jesus’ siblings (Mk 3:21, 31; Jn 7:5), presumably including James, who appears to have shifted his approach after Jesus’ resurrection (1 Cor 15:7). The tradition is not likely to have invented their initial mistrust, since the respect of one’s family was a normal part of honor.

187 Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus, 93.

188 Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus, 93.

189 Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus, 93. One cannot therefore postulate Bar Kochba as a fiction, since contemporary sources leave no doubt about him (cf. e.g., Pileggi, “Bar-Kochva Letters”).

190 Eddy and Boyd, Legend, 167-68.

191 Flusser, Sage, 1.

192 Flusser, “Ancestry,” 154.

193 Kennedy, “Source Criticism,” 130.

194 See Kleve, “Did Socrates Exist?”

195 See e.g., Charlesworth and Evans, “Agrapha,” 491; Dunn, New Perspective, 34; Ellis, “Gospels and History,” 49; De Rosa, “Chi è Gesù.” From a more theological and narrative vantage point, Pope Benedict views the Jesus of the Gospels as a more coherent figure than scholarly reconstructions about him (Benedict, Jesus of Nazareth, xxi-xxii).

↑ Back to top