Adam

Isn't this self-contradictory? You believe Luke had these two sources you list, but you refuse to accept Luke's statement that he used sources like these?

Adam

By my New Webster's, Toto is right. A skeptic "doubts the truth of anything, especially of that which others accept as true", and "freethinker" comes out somewhat similar as well. Not to be confused with any definition of "history" or "historian".
Toto may be right again, if we define Christian apologists as not respectable scholars. Academics tend to deny that the Beloved Disciple (especially if he is regarded as John the Apostle) wrote all of gJohn. Notice however that in m Post #24 (just above Toto's #25 quoted here) I stated, "John 21:24 is probably saying that the Beloved Disciple testifies to material in gJohn besides the Passion Narrative source." Here we see a Redactor stating that he believes the Editor or whatever elements of gJohn that the Beloved Disciple added in. There's no reason for the historian to dismiss a statement that that the Beloved Disciple wrote at least part of gJohn. He could, of course, develop an argument that the Beloved Disciple is an idealization, but the burden falls upon him instead of the historian who accepts the plain statement.Yes, as above, and also refer to my Post #24.

Adam

Amusing. Whom do you propose Luke plagiarized from? Oh, Streeter's Proto-Luke author? And that would decrease or increase the historical veracity of the text? Just as your students who plagiarized probably submitted a more scholarly text than those who didn't?

show_no_mercy

If Mark invented the character "Barabba" then any narrative that uses that character in the same context that Mark used it in is necessarily dependent on Mark.

One has to consider the uncharacteristic nature of Pilate in the same pericope as well. All of the gospels depict him as patient and willing to give a trial to two people. All other sources outside of the Gospels depict him as impatient. That makes me skeptical that the Pilate/Barabba pericope is independent between Mark and John.

Adam

Scholars largely attribute the common features in the Synoptics to a Passion Narrative underlying them. The only controversy is whether this source underlies gJohn as well. The probability is growing that I am correct that Mark, Luke, and John are dependent upon a source and not upon each other.

aa5874

It is immaterial to even attempt to argue that each gospel is independent since all the five versions of the Jesus stories are ABSOLUTE Fiction or implausible.

It makes no real difference if some one was told the Jesus story by Ratzinger in Rome or Benny Hinn in America. ALL stories about Jesus are non-historical.

andrewcriddle

I agree that the date of Jesus' death in John fits John's theology. However allowing Jesus' last meal with his disciples to be a passover probably fits Mark's theology.

One indication that the Johannine dating is earlier may be the story of Barabbas.

There are serious problems with the historicity of this story, but if we assume that the custom of releasing a prisoner is meant to be at least vaguely plausible, then the trial of Jesus must be occurring before not after the Passover meal. The only way in which a custom of releasing a prisoner as a token gesture to Jewish sensibilities makes sense is if the prisoner is released to partake in the Passover. In the Markan chronology, Barabbas cannot be released to partake in the Passover, it happened yesterday.

Andrew Criddle

PhilosopherJay

Hi andrewcriddle,

This is an excellent point. It would be the equivalent of a governor releasing prisoners for Christmas today and doing it on December 26th. It really only makes sense to do it on December 24th.

The historian, Robin Lane Fox, also finds the trial account in John much more believable than the ones in the synoptics.

I would only caution against believing that a text is more historical because it is more believable. In the latest 2005 version of the movie King Kong, Kong's ice skating in central park is less believable than anything that happens in the 1933 version. This does not make the 1933 version historical. It only means the filmmakers of the 2005 version decided to add some humor to the story, even if it took away from the realism that they were trying to create in some other scenes.

John has Jesus as the Passover sacrifice because it reflects his theology and/or his source's theology. It is possible that Jesus was in fact sacrificed on the day before Passover eve and that is why John presents him as a Passover Sacrifice and why John has that Theology. In other words the historical event might have led to the theology. However, I think the historical evidence points to it being a theological plot device.

To me, the idea that the leadership of the Jews would want a fellow Jew executed on the day before Passover is far fetched. Tens of thousands of Jews and God-fearers were in Jerusalem for the annual celebration. It is hard to imagine that Jewish leaders would want them to pass by a Jewish man being crucified on their way to their Passover dinners. People would be confused by the sight and wonder about Jesus. It would take their minds off the ceremony. They might choose not to come the following year which would hurt the Jerusalem economy.

The unlikeliness of this day-before-Passover execution and the fact that there is no historical evidence of an annual release custom, mitigate against John describing an historical event as opposed to a fictional one inspired by theological rhetoric.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

PhilosopherJay

Hi Adam,

Good point. Someone who does poor research may indeed accidentally come up with more truth than someone who does a lot of research.

Perhaps I should have suggested that Luke was the type of investigator similar to my students who hand me in papers showing that "President Obama is Really a Muslim" or "Evolution is an Unproven Theory Created by Charles Darwin." They investigate by googling the subject and going to the top two or three websites on the subject. These are generally the ones that give the most sensational and absurd nonsense and thereby attract the most web traffic. They then copy down all the lies and absurdities and present this as their research. Luke may have done an equally shallow job of consulting biased and ridiculous sources in his "investigation". This assumes that he is not just being rhetorical in using the word "investigation," since, as Toto pointed out, he never presents any direct evidence of his investigation.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Duvduv

According to the list of Talmudic Amoraim in Judea and Babylonia, none (out of about 26) were called someone-bar-Abba before the 3rd century except for a single case of the father of Shmuel, who headed the yeshiva in Nahardea in the middle of the third century. His father was known as Abahu de-Shmuel or Abba Bar Abba and would have been born towards the end of the 2nd century.
However, all the others were from the third through fifth centuries.