Vinnie

http://www.after-hourz.net/ri/gethsemane.html

Here I evaluate the account of Jesus' prayer before being arrested in the four Gospels. Does the prayer(s) go back to the historical Jesus? Are the accounts harmonious?

I comment on the often quoted objection: How could the disciples have known what Jesus prayed if he was so far away and they were sleeping. This objection does not appear to be able to with-stand critical evaluation.

I also note some theological differences between the accounts and point out the theological reasons for their different formulations.

Vinnie

NOGO

Your last sentence is wishful thinking in my opinion.

I am offering this as constructive criticism.

People who withdraw to pray do so for one and only one reaon. Privacy!

They do not want to be heard, otherwise Jesus would have stayed with them. It is also true that one does not usually go out of one's way to listen to someone pray. Call it respect or simply consideration for other's privacy. I would have expected an explanation or justification for listening in on simeone praying.

This basically demolishes all your arguments.

Yes it is possible that Jesus did not go far enough and they overheard but all you are doing is splitting hair.

Celsus

You're an expert on first century Jewish prayer practices? You know all about ancient Jewish psychological profiles (have you ever been to a culture where there is no such thing as "privacy"?)? Did you discuss this with Jesus first?

Joel

Vinnie

Its both you (the attacking skeptic) and the believer who split hairs. I do not state the account is or is not an error. I make no judgment on it. Both the skeptic calling it an error and the believer harmonizing it make the assertions that can't be defended.

How far Jesus was, how loud he was, how long it took the disciples to fall asleep and other factors are simply UNKNOWN. In an absence of evidence the positive statements of both the believer and the skeptic are useless polemic. Both the skeptic reads in unknowns and so does the believer when making these judgments.

Its even possible Markwrote [Jesus went] a little farther on purpose. (emphasis mine).


"""""""People who withdraw to pray do so for one and only one reaon. Privacy!"""""""

Yes they do. This does not mean zero percentage of the prayer of an agonizing Jesus was or was not heard as he went away to pray (each time). As I stated, Jesus supposedly prayed for at least an hour. The text says this. The gospels only record less than a minute of prayer.

I already stated in the article that the accurate words of Jesus are probably not preserved here. But not because they "couldn't" have been heard. Because of the difficulties with the account I outlined.

Not to mention the conservatives will just respond to the objection with the old ipsissima vox vs ipsissima verba apologetic.

Vinnie

Vorkosigan

Vinnie, it is a fiction! It never happened. The whole series of events from the triumphal entry to the prayer in the garden are fictions invented and embellished by the gospel authors. The agony in the garden is based on the Septaugint III Kings 19, the story of Elijah's fleeing from Ahab and Jezebel. Luke even quotes the Greek from the Septaugint III Kings 19:8). Mark has also borrowed from other LXX stories, not merely the general idea, but also specific language (quoting Jonah 4:9 LXX). See Hlem's discussion of this in Gospel Fictions pp108-111. Even Brown, who is loathe to admit the fictional origin of this passage, notes that it contains typical Markan features -- doublets -- that indicate literary expansion. This prayer scene never happened. Mark made it up.

Vorkosigan

Amaleq13

I don't know if NOGO consulted with Jesus but we do have the following sentiment attributed to him in Matthew:

"But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you." (6:6, NASB)

Vinnie

You are only reiterating what I myself wrote in the article. The question was not historicity with NOGO. It is often objected that the disciples could not have heard what Jesus said. This objection has not and cannot be demonstrated.

I used other grounds--demonstrable grounds-- to show "its fiction."

And I don't accept your assertion that Mark made it all up. Someone before him might have made it up. This could be confirmed by Hebrews. Mark might have inherited a few disparate traditions he strung together as well.

The final product as it stands in Mark now is certainly fiction and that does not bode well for the others who drew from him. I have no doubts about that.


"""notes that it contains typical Markan features -- doublets""""""

I have read Brown's comments on this. He hardly writes "Mark has doublets thus equals fiction" in volume 1 of Death of the Messiah. There is some reservation expressed with the doublets IIRC.

My understanding is that the Gethsemane account is based upon (modeled after) 2 Sam 15. From my article:

More obviously, however, several of the evangelists are echoing the Ascent of Olives references in II Sam 15:30. Absalom had led Jerusalem to revolt against David with the help of Ahithophel, David's trusted counselor who deserted him; and so David went out (15:16: exerchesthai), crossed "the winter-flowing" Kidron (LXX 15:23), went up the Ascent of Olives, wept there, and prayed to God. As Glasson ("Davidic"), Trudinger ("Davidic") and others have pointed out, this David narrative in II Sam 15 constitutes the background of the Synoptic scene where Jesus goes to the Mount of Olives, soul sorrowful, praying to God, betrayed by a trusted member of the Twelve (a parallelism that Matt 27:5 heightens by having Judas hang himself, even as did Ahithophel in II Sam 178:23--the only two biblical figures to do so). John, who does not mention the Mount of Olives, echoes II Sam 15 as well, since "across the Kidron valley" is literally "across the winter-flowing Kidron," i.e., a wadi or arroyo that has flowing water only in the winter when it rains." (Brown, ibid.)

This of course does not mean III Kings was not in mind either. There is no need to bifurcate between the two.

I learned about Matthew's suicide of Judas when writing thing. Wasn't aware that it was patterned after Ahithophel.

Vinnie

Vinnie

Someone might see resorting to "proof-text hunting" such as that as being equivalent to a concession

Vinnie

Amaleq13

That would be an odd perception but sustained consumption of sufficient quantities of beer tend to produce such confusion.

Vinnie

I aint been imbibing no pyscotropic substances 2-nite