Solo

Hi Chocky,

welcome to the forum !

You will find that palm branches are only mentioned by John. Mark who is probably the original narrative on which the other gospel drew, has the crowd spreading garments and "branches" from the "fields". The covering of the road suggests royal procession with the donkey fulfiling Zech 9:9. The cries of 'Hosanna,..blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord' (Mk 11:9) repeats Psalm 118:26, 'blessed be he who enters in the name of the Lord. We bless you from the house of the Lord'. Jesus enters Jerusalem and goes to the temple (Mk 11:11). So the phrasing is quite deliberate.

The welcoming crowd looks very much like stage props fulfilling the drama of the passion, by providing substance to the accusation that Jesus is a messianic impostor, on which he is tried and condemned. Mark is not even trying to make a call for the people to gather for the party. The magical 'fulfilment' of Zechariah prophecy is given by Jesus sending his disciples to find a donkey, the donkey being found as predicted and his owner agreeing to lending it. As this is confirmed, some people run ahead of Jesus to the city gates with the cries of Hosanna. It is interesting that Mark describes the ground-covering crowd as 'many' (polys), the same identifier used in rebuking Bartimaeus for calling Jesus you son of David.

Best,
Jiri

aa5874

The "invented from whole cloth" theory is NOT based on conjecture at all.

It based on the written statements, the written EVIDENCE of antiquity.

Jesus was fundamentally INVENTED from mis-guided interpretations of Hebrew Scripture or the Septuagint.

In effect, Jesus was an INVENTION based on FALSE prophecies or MISinterpretations.

1. The birth of Jesus was based on mis-interpretation of Isaiah 7.14.

2 .The birth of Jesus in Bethlehem was based on mis-interpretation of Micah 5.2

3. The star in the east was based on the mis-interpretation of Numbers 24.17.

4.The fleeing to Egypt was based on the mis-interpretation of Exodus 4.22 and Hosea 11.3

5. The killing of the innocent was based on the mis-interpretation of Jeremiah 31.15.

6.The preaching of John the Baptist is based on the mis-interpretation of Isaiah 40.13.

7.The words of God after Jesus was baptized was based on the mis-interpretation of Psalms 2.7 and Isaiah 42.1.

7. The Temptation is based on the mis-interpretation of Deut. 6.16.

8.The Sermon on the mount is fundamentally based on the mis-interpretation of Isaiah 61.2, Isaiah 55.1-2, 2 Sam. 22.26 and other passages in Hebrew Scripture.

9. The miracles are based on the misinterpretation of Isaiah 53.4

10. The betrayal of Jesus was based on misinterpretation of Zechariah 13.7.

11. The crucifixion scene is based on misinterpretation of Psalms 22.

12. The resurrection of Jesus is based on the misinterpretation of the book of Jonah.

The theory that Jesus was invented from whole cloth is GOOD and based on the WRITTEN EVIDENCE from antiquity.

But, I have NOT claimed absolute certainty. No claim is absolutely certain and you KNOW that I have CONSISTENTLY and CONSTANTLY claimed that the MJ theory is SIMPLY FAR SUPERIOR to HJ.

MJ is based on the WRITTEN EVIDENCE of antiquity but HJ is based on REJECTION of the WRITTEN EVIDENCE from antiquity.

MJers say that the WRITTEN statements from antiquity of Jesus described a MYTH.

HJers AGREE that the WRITTEN statements from antiquity of Jesus is fundamentally NON-historical yet still, contrary to the EVIDENCE, declare FAITH in their own imagined Jesus.

Both FUNDAMENTALIST AND HJers imagine that Jesus did REALLY exist without any external corroborative sources.

Fundamentalists and HJers hold the SAME BELIEF that Jesus was historical WITHOUT supporting external evidence of antiquity.

spamandham

Is it *possible* that the triumphal entry happened coincident with Jesus' crucifixion? Sure, it's possible. But isn't the simpler perspective that it's purely literary?

andrewcriddle

To some extent the arguments for and against the historicity of the triumphal entry into Jerusalem. depend on whether John's account is based on Mark or is basically independent.

I think John's account is probably basically independent but most on this forum would probably disagree.

Andrew Criddle

Doug Shaver

I haven't been tracking the scholarly research on the issue all that closely, but I get the impression that the former consensus on John's independence, although still strong, has begun to erode a bit.

DCHindley

Andrew,

Do you mean to suggest that they follow Smith in thinking that the Jesus narratives of John were hung on the outline of Secret Mark or a proto-Mark? Here? There are at most 3-4 folks here, including you and I, who are even vaguely aware of this fact.

Or do you mean that everyone here thinks it is all fiction created in the grand conspiracies of 4th century Roman imperial power politics? If that is what you meant, then I'd have to agree.

BTW, how "independent" is the term "independent" to you? I mean, on the theory of intertextuality, all texts are dependent in some way on all other texts the author has been exposed to. "Texts" in this theory includes all narrative accounts, whether written or oral. I am sure you probably mean lacking in conscious or deliberate dependency.

Sometimes, it seems that to many "independent" means that each author who relays a specific tradition is "signing off" (giving their assent to) its authority or accuracy, as opposed to just passing on info from another without comment. Has there been a serious study of any relationship between the gospel of Mark and the Gospel of John as an attempt to flesh out Smith's suggestion?

DCH

andrewcriddle

I meant that IIUC most people on this forum regard the original author of John as having known more than one of the synoptics, eg Mark and Luke.
I used terms such as basically independent because I suspect that our canonical text of John has been slightly revised (and probably had chapter 21 added) by a redactor who had at least some knowledge of the synoptics.

Andrew Criddle