Toto

This is not how I understand the term in this context. The issue is whether John is an independent source. If John's only source of information is Mark, then John is dependent on Mark, even if John rewrites, embellishes, or contradicts Mark. It was not unknown in those times for writers to transvalue story elements and turn them on their head.

There are many later Jewish sources that mention Jesus, generally in an unflattering manner. But the scholarly conclusion is that they are derivative - their only information about Jesus is from Christian sources - so they are not independent of the gospels.

(E.g. - the gospels have Jesus born of a virgin - a parthenon - but critics sneered and this and claimed he was the son of a Roman soldier named Panthera. This claim is dependent on the gospels and contradicts them.)

Juststeve

Toto:

I would agree in principle with what you wrote but the question is how would one ever know that John's only source was Mark where: Mark is silent but John is not. How could Mark be the source of the Lazarus story, for example?

Or. where Mark and John contradict as in the case of the date of the crucifixion. John has Jesus dead and buried at the time Mark has Jesus eating dinner. While I suppose it is possible that John rewrote Mark the simplest explanation for what is observed is that John heard a different story than Mark heard.

Why would we imagine that John got either the Lazarus story or the timing of the crucifixion from Mark?

Steve

Toto

That is not a simpler explanation. It multiplies sources unnecessarily.

Why would John rewrite Mark? Theology. He turns Jesus into the paschal lamb, with implications for the timing of Jesus' death.

aa5874

Your claim is fallacious. The fact that gMark and gJohn contains the name Barabbas does NOT mean the character did exist or that the Barabbas story is historical.

But, if you insist that the mention of Barabbas in gMark and gJohn is attestation of Barabbas then the Birth Narratives in gMatthew and gLuke is independent ATTESTATION that Jesus was the Child of a Holy Ghost.

If you insist that stories in gMark and gJohn signify independent attestation then Jesus did really WALK on the sea.

In gMark 6. 48-49 and gJohn 6.18-20 Jesus WALKED on water.

Juststeve

Toto:

I quite agree that if we knew that Mark was John's source you have given a plausible explanation of why he would have re-written it in the way he did. What you don't have though is evidence that John actually had Mark as his only source or even as one of his sources.

The Gospel on the other hand gives its own account of sourcing. The "we" who know the testimony is true claim to have gotten their information from the beloved disciple. That would be independent of Mark. No where in John is it stated that the author(s) followed Mark. In this case as well as in the case of what Luke says about his sources mythers are required to just ignore what the texts say about sources of information to maintain the M/J project. I can see no justification for doing this.

Steve

Duvduv

If there is no evidence in Jewish sources of the name Bar Abba being used before the 3rd or 4th century, what does that suggest about the use of that name in the gospels??
The only conclusion to be be drawn is the likelihood that this part of the gospel story was a late introduction. And why would the gospel introduce the adversary criminal specially with that name instead of Yochanan or Yehuda or Moshe or Solomon?

The fact that R. Tanchuma Bar Abba is introduced into a Toldoth Yeshu story and that he lived on eastern side of the Jordan River (where Jesus is said to travel) in the 4th century may have nothing to do with anything, although it is still a mystery why the author of that Toldoth would pick that Amora rabbi for his story.

Juststeve

Duvduv:

That there is, as you say, no evidence of the name Bar Abba before the third or forth century actually suggests a number of possibilities. One is the name didn't exist before then, as you suggest, but that is hardly the only possibility suggested by the lack of evidence. The name may have been uncommon or unimportant and therefore absent from what you call "Jewish Sources". Do we actually have a "Jewish Source" that lists all of the names used in first century Palestine? The name may have been present in Jewish sources that are no longer available. A lot of records were no doubt destroyed during the events of 70 C.E. It is always important to guard against conclusions that are stronger than the evidence permit, particularly when the evidence is in the form of silence. In any event, to say as you do that "The only conclusion to be be drawn is the likelihood that this part of the gospel story was a late introduction" is a bridge too far.

Steve

James The Least

Yes, John makes explicit what is implicit in Mark: the reason Jesus was killed on Passover was not based on any historic event. He was the Lamb of God whom the Jews sacrificed for "our" (non-Jews) salvation. All done so the scriptures of the prophets could be fulfilled. A mystery hidden since the beginning of time, but now revealed by God to us through the scriptures.

Toto

This is rather astounding. Is there a reason to take claims in religious documents at face value? Historians are not so naive.

I thought you claimed to be a skeptic.

Duvduv

Steve, you make valid points. From lists of tannaim of the first and second centuries there is not a single one called Bar Abba even while one was named Abba Arikha.
Yet among later Amoraim there are many named Bar Abba.
This is worth considering.