Ben C Smith

Look at how Neusner turned on Morton Smith and his Mar Saba find after their falling out. Did Neusner think that his new analysis of Theodore was fictional, made up, or in any way less than accurate just because it now proceeded directly from his own newfound disgust with Smith?

But I think that Mark is more balanced than you give him credit for when it comes to the disciples. So is Matthew. The recent paper by Goodacre is heavy in this area.

Wait a minute. Even on your own showing Matthew did not create the triumphal entry; he got it from Mark (even if Mark invented it whole cloth, it would be traditional material for Matthew). Then he noticed that he could squeeze another, even more tangible (one might say thickheadedly literal) level of OT fulfillment out of the scene. And he also explicitly quotes Zechariah 9.9 where Mark had not. Is this not theological embellishment of a tradition on his part?

I understand this. But fitting traditional materials into a framework is no hard task. In many cases the framework itself tells you which materials to put where, what to include and exclude, and how to word certain lines.

Ben.

ynquirer

If one looks at Mark as a template for the other gospels, there is a notorious cleavage at the beginning of chapter 11. The first part of the gospel is focused on Jesus’ marvels, that is, on a being with supernatural powers, while the second so is on a man as such a man. The healing of the blind beggar in the way from Jericho (Mk 10:46-52, Mt 20:29-34, Lk 18:35-43) is the last miracle performed by Mark's Jesus.

Then, he enters Jerusalem and is greeted by the crowd; it is noteworthy that he does not do so by floating in the air – he could have done so, after all he walked over the waters, didn’t he? – but humbly mounting a colt. I know that it can be justified from a literary standpoint, but next he expels the moneychangers and other traders from the Temple, and he doesn’t do this by throwing lightning over the wrongdoers, nor does he lift them from a distance. He just shouts at them, beats them and throws the tables upside down. He is a man, very angry indeed, but solely a man.

What happened in between the mounting of the colt and the expelling of the traders from the Temple? Jesus feels hungry, he wants figs from a fig-tree, but there are no figs in the tree: it is still not the season. This spots the cleavage: Jesus is not able to get figs from a tree, he who has been able to feed crowds by the thousands. Either his miraculous powers are exhausted – but why? – or he doesn’y want to display them. However, he can still curse the tree, and the next day one learns that the tree has withered. Summing up, Jesus has entered the Temple so bad-tempered, partly because he wants to cleanse his house, partly because he is hungry. He suffers from human needs as well as human passions.

(In another pericope of this second part, the woman with an alabaster jar, which Matthew faithfully copies while Luke includes, rather emended, in the first part, Mark has Jesus be invited by one Simon the leper. The pericope ends without the gospel saying that Jesus heals the leper, and this has intrigued some commentators. Well, the answer is clear: Jesus is not said to heal the leper because it is not the time for Jesus to work any miracles. This serves reassure the reader that the narrative must now be read as history.)

If the subsequent gospels diverge as regard the first part, they are quite in agreement in following Mark along the second part.

1) Cleansing of the Temple (Mk 11:15-17, Mt 21:12-13, Lk 19:45-46),
2) Discussion with the chief priests and the scribes and the elders on authority (Mk 11:27-33, Mt 21:23-27, Lk 20:1-8),
3) Parable of the vineyard (Mk 12:1-11, Mt 21:33-43, Lk 20:9-18),
4) Discussion on taxes (Mk 12:13-17, Mt 22:15-22, Lk 20:19-26),
5) Discussion with the Sadducees on resurrection (Mk 12:18-17, Mt 22:23-32, Lk 20:27-40),
6) Jesus’ question on David (Mk 12:35-37, Mt 22:41-46, Lk 20:41-44),
7) Jesus blame on the scribes (Mk 12:38-41, Mt ch.23, Lk 20:46-47),
8) Little Apocalypse (Mk ch.13, Mt ch.24, Lk 21:5-36),
9) Last Supper (Mk 14:13-25, Mt 26:17-29, Lk 22:1-38),
10) Mount of Olives/Gethsemane (Mk 14:26-42, Mt 26:30-46, Lk 22-39-46),
11) Arrest (Mk 14:43-52, Mt 26:47-56, Lk 22:47-54, Jn 18:1-12),
12) Trial at the council (Mk 14:44-65, Mt 26:57-68, Lk 22:66-71, Jn 18:13-28),
13) Peter’s denial (Mk 14:66-72, Mt 26:69-75, Lk 22:55-62, Jn 18:25-27),
14) Before Pilate (Mk 15:1-5, Mt 27:11-14, Lk 23:1-16; Jn 18:29-38),
15) Release of Barabbas (Mk 15:6-11, Mt 27:15-21, Lk 23:18-19; Jn 18:39-40),
16) Conviction and sentence to death (Mk 15:12-15, Mt 27: 22-26, Lk 23:20-24, Jn 19:1-16),
17) Three crosses at Golgotha (Mk 15:22-27, Mt 27:33-38, Lk 23:32-33 Jn 19:18),
18) Inscription “King of the Jews� (Mk 15:26, Mt 27:37, Lk 23:38, Jn 19:19-22),
19) Death (Mk 15:33-41, Mt 27:45-56, Lk 23:44-49, Jn 19:28-37),
20) Preparation day (Mk 15:42, Mt 27:62, Lk 23:54, Jn 19:42),
21) Joseph of Arimathea gets the body from Pilate and buries it (Mk 15:43-47, Mt 27:57-61, Lk 23:50-53, Jn 19:38-42),
22) The day after the Sabbath (Mk 16:1, Mt 28:1, Lk 24:1, Jn 20:1),
23) Empty tomb (Mk 16:2-8, Mt 28:2-7, Lk 24:2-7, Jn 20:2-9).

There are minor departures from the main, say, Mark’s story. Luke has Jesus meet Herod between Caiaphas’ and Pilate’s judgments. John specifies that Jesus’ meeting with Caiaphas takes place in Annas’ house – his father in law. Yet, on the whole, the narrative of the second part is miracle-free, exception to be made for the replacement of the ear of one of Jesus’ persecutors, according to both Luke and John, on the one hand, and wonders at Jesus’ death, – yet this is not Jesus, but the Father, – on the other. Everything else resembles a naturalistic narrative.

There is a hard kernel of stories – or pericopes – numbered 11 to 23 above, in which all the four gospelers are in basic agreement as regard the narrated events; the only serious departure is John’s, who says that Jesus’ arrest occurred at the valley of Kidron, while the Synoptics say that it happened at Gethsemane. Matthew in the first part says that there were two possessed living in the tombs while Mark says it was only one, even in the second part Luke says that there were two angels at the empty tomb while Matthew says there was only one. But there is a kernel of events in whose narrative all of them keep a consistent concordance.

No one of the four gospelers says anything different from a basic narrative according to which, after being arrested, Jesus was unofficially tried – and sentenced to death – before the high priest, and then sent to the Roman governor so as to render the sentence official. In two gospels, both robbers crucified with Jesus make scorn of him, while the other two gospels have one of them ask Jesus for forgiveness; but no one of the four hesitates in saying that Pilate was reluctant to condemn Jesus, and that he only yielded to the pressure of a riotous crowd, who preferred to release Barabbas.

No one hesitates to say that there were three crosses – it might have been one, or else ten, or whatever kabalistic figure. All of them agree in that an inscription in reference to the king of the Jews was posted on Jesus’ cross. Again, all agree in the role of Joseph of Arimathea. So do them as regards Jesus was crucified on Preparation day and the tomb discovered empty on the day after the Sabbath or the first day of the week.

Not only does the agreement cover the narrated events, but the order in which they are narrated is altogether the same.

The coincidence is as striking as to have induced several authors to think that there was a source – the so-called Passion Narrative – from which all the four gospelers drew. But no trait of such a hypothetical work has been found.

After the events of the Passion Narrative, divergences as among the gospels reappear at large. Mark ends his gospel at the detection of the empty tomb, but the other three resume a type of narrative that resembles the first part – marvels. And they diverge from each other as much as they do in the first part. Therefore, it might be said that they display three parts while Mark so does only two.

All in all, the Passion Narrative – whether or not it existed a separated text – makes up a succession of events that the four gospelers deem to be history, or at least they write as if it were history – no film remaking is as faithful as regard a part of the story told while being that free as regard the rest of it. And still, the events from the cleansing of the Temple to the arrest of Jesus make up a narrative that the three Synoptics deal with as if it were history as well – John’s lacking such a narrative not necessarily implying that he does not deem it to be history but perhaps that it is not relevant for the fulfillment of his theological agenda.

If the gospels are held to be pure fiction, one must acknowledge that it is a complex, very odd type of fiction.

Amaleq13

Thanks for the responses, Rick and Ben.

Our only hope is apparently the development of time travel technology.

Ben C Smith

I read your post with great interest. Much to think about.

It may also be more than sheer coincidence that the passion of Jesus is also precisely what is supported in pagan and Jewish sources.

The death of Jesus on a Roman cross may well be the securest thing we know about his life.

Ben.

yalla

Vork
''Don't moderns make up stories about Jesus and Peter and James etc?"

Yeah, but...do they believe what they make up is [historically] true?

I'm not expressing myself too clearly probably, it's just that I find the idea of making up stories about god [if you are a believer in that god] incredibily...cheeky?
It seems to me that making up fiction about god would be a no no for god fearers. Blasphemy type of thing.
Yet that is what I see as having happened.
I just don't understand the mind-set involved.

It's like the unverified faith is better than verified faith comment from another thread.
Having faith in faith.
I don't "get'' the mind set.

Vorkosigan

Not quite. There's the ass tied up just where he said it would be, the fig tree, and of course, the miracle of prophecy in Mark 13, and of course, the Resurrection.

Vorkosigan

Precisely. My structural analysis indicates that much material has been removed from here, and that originally the gospel pivoted here, marking the end of the first half and the beginning of the second.

Michael

countjulian

But to them, it wasn;t making things up. If someone actually took the time to read the Bible and the classics, they would see that this is so. Ancient literature is full of references to whole groups of people "saying" how they feel, what they are going to do, etc. (e.g. "the Jews said to themselves" "the Jebusites schemed in their hearts" "the slaves were all saying to eachother" etc.) How were they to know what whole classes and groups of were saying, in their hearts (minds). It was a kind of literary device. Today, you or I would say "the Palestinians feel like" or "the Christians seem to think" etc. An ancient would say "the Palestinians say" or "the Christians say in their hearts." When ancient authors wrote such things, they weren't making it up, they were just conveying what they actually said or felt like in a way that accepted and familiar in their culture.

With Jesus, on the other hand, we have very specific syaing and actions, a great number of them, all sprinkled throughout narratives in differen places and contexts, often to fit the theological agendas of the authors. It's important to remember that the churchs that produced these disparate works were all contending for the title of "orthodoxy", and were all seeking to justify their claim to existance. If the church did it, obviously Jesus must have done it to.

And that brings us to the "sources" used for the gospels, specifically Luke. I know exactly what sources Luke used. I'll give you a hint: in Kansas, the beginning part of this source is being taught to kids as a science text book. When Luke referred to "checking his sources" he was talking about scriptural citation. If it was a prophecy (and a whole lot of crap in the Tanach was, apparently, prophecy) it counted as a source. So, in their own way, the evangelists were being good historians.

ynquirer

I don’t think the question was that ambitious. The question was whether the writers of the gospels wanted their works to be read as fiction or as history. A reasonable answer is that, at least as regard the passion narrative, they wanted them to be read as history. That’s all.

Vorkosigan

It's reasonable in Luke's case. But not in Mark's. I think that is the problem here. The presentation of Mark and Luke as documents of identical genre telling two different angles of the same story obscures the fact that they are different documents with different goals, I think.

Michael