JoeWallack

JW:
aa has pointed out the details of the Passion come from the Jewish Bible. But I think the most basic assertions of the Passion come from Paul. The Passion is commonly rightly divided into:

1) Betrayal

2) Arrest

3) Trial

4) Crucifixion

5) Burial

All of these sign posts can be found in Paul who doesn't have much more to say about Jesus than this:

http://vridar.wordpress.com/2010/01/...torical-jesus/

"he knew Jesus was betrayed (1 Cor. 11:23)"

a better translation is "handed over"/"delivered up" =

1) Betrayal

2) Arrest

"he knew Jesus was crucified (1 Cor. 1:17-18; Gal. 5:1; 6:12; Phil. 2:8; 3:18 — but he omits here Paul’s reference to the responsible party — archons, or “rulers of the age”)" =

3) Trial

Paul's mantra =

4) Crucifixion

"he knew Jesus was buried and resurrected three days later (Rom. 4:24-25; 1 Cor. 15: 4-8)" =

5) Burial

I find it reMarkable that for someone who tells us relatively little about HJ, a relatively high percent of what he does say makes up the basics of "Mark's" Passion.

Paul explains that God revealed Jesus to Paul in the Jewish Bible. This means that for Paul, Jesus' "history" was in the Jewish Bible (and not in historical witness). "Mark" understood this so that is why all the details of Jesus' supposed Passion come from the Jewish Bible. The history of HJ just distracts from the theology. This is why "Mark" gives Jesus' history as:

Mark 1.

Jesus' history is the Jewish Bible. There is no history of Jesus in the Markan narrative. Note that the other Gospellers all try to convert the Revelation of Paul/"Mark" into historical witness and end up with contradictions because they have a base which has a different (original) theology than they do.

This than is the explanation for HJ, Paul is intentionally avoiding the history of HJ because his theology is Revelation. The related problem though for HJ is that Paul's writings show no evidence that he was ever forced to deal with HJ, which he should have been if there was one.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

PhilosopherJay

Hi JoeWallack,

Actually, every part of the Passion is about betrayal. Everyone in the passion is either betraying or being betrayed:

In the temple. Jesus betrays the merchants, the chief priests and scribes betray Jesus by asking him for a sign (Gospel of John). Jesus betrays his followers by not giving a sign,and his followers betray him by misunderstanding him and thinking he's advocating the destruction of the temple.

The Fig Tree betrays Jesus by not giving him fruit. Jesus betrays the fig tree by causing it to wither.

Jesus betrays the chief priests by refusing to say where he gets his authority

The parable of the wicked tenants is about tenants who betray their landlord and kill his messengers and sons

Jesus betrays all poor Jews by telling them to pay taxes to Caesar

Jesus betrays the Pharisees who believed in life after death, by denying the resurrection and saying that: (Mark 12.27) He is not God of the dead, but of the living;

Jesus betrays the scribes by saying that they are hypocrites who take the best seats in the synagogue

Jesus betrays his disciples by admitting that he doesn't know when the apocalypse will be.

The disciples betray Jesus by denouncing his expensive anointment oil

Judas Iscariot betrays Jesus

The disciples betray Jesus by falling asleep and then running away when he's arrested

Peter betrays Jesus by denying he is a disciple

The Jewish Sanhedrin betray Jesus by bringing false witnesses

Pontius Pilate betrays Jesus by declaring him guilty while proclaiming him innocent

The Roman soldiers betray Jesus by playing vicious games and stealing his clothes.

Jesus betrays the women who go to the tomb by not being there.

etc.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Chili

Likely true Pete, except that it was called Catholicism according to this different gospel that Paul was talking about, and of course, his reason for this was that Catholics are not, and never were Christian in the same way as Jews are not Christian until they become one and then are no longer a Jew just as Jesus never was a Jew but was the son of God born of a Jew. 'This' Jew was said to be Joseph and he kind of remained like an outsider in the gosples to show that he was the person in history that actually walked the face of the earth.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Joe,

I think your basic point is that Paul doesn't deal with an HJ because there is no HJ to deal with. The gospels haven't been written yet, so Paul's Jesus is just a heavenly construct based on Hebrew Scriptures.

Right?

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

aa5874

How does a resurrected creature be evidence of history? Josephus is evidence of fiction and mythology with respect to Jesus.

AJ 18.3.3 See http://wesley.nnu.edu

aa5874

But the Pauline writer only claimed Jesus was betrayed, he gave no other details. The author of Mark did not use 1 Cor 11.23 for the details about Judas and the manner of the betrayal.

But, the author of gMark used Psalms 41.9.


Now, the Pauline writer is claiming that the information in 1 Cor 11.23 did NOT originate with him but from another source.

And this is critically important, the Pauline writer is claiming to have received information from a non-existing source, from the Lord Jesus who was raised from the dead.

If it is assumed that the Pauline writer wrote first then it would be expected that the author of gMark would have used the word structure and phrasing in 1 Cor 11.23 when he was ready to write his Passion scene.

The author did not use the 1 Cor 11.23. The author of gMark either used a different source or made up his event.

Mark 14.22-24
Matthew 26.26-26 The word structure and phrasing in gMark is distinctly similar to gMatthew.

The word structure and phrasing in 1 Cor 11.24-25 is very similar to gLuke.

1 Cor 11.23-25 Luke 22.19-21 So when gMatthew and gMark were ready to write their Passion scene they appear not to use 1 Cor 11, but when gLuke was ready he seemed to use 1 Cor 11.23-25.

The evidence indicates that 1 Cor 11.23-25 was not known to the author of gMark or gMatthew.

But, the Pauline writer admitted that the information in 1 Cor 11.23-25 did NOT ORIGINATE from him but from some other source. He claimed it was from a non-historical source, a non-existing source, from the Lord Jesus who was raised from the dead.

This could hardly be true. The Pauline writer must have gotten the information from an earthly source.

The Pauline writer got the information in 1 Cor 11.23-25 from gLuke 22.19-20 or some similar source but certainly not from an entity that was raised from the dead.

The author of gMARK used Psalms 41.9 and the Pauline writer used Luke 22.19-20.

PhilosopherJay

Hi aa5874,

Good comparison. However, I think we have to examine this text a little bit more carefully structurally before we make judgments on who took what from whom.

The bread and wine scene in Mark and Matthew comes just after Jesus accuses Judas of betraying him and just before they sing a hymn, go to the Mount of Olives and Jesus predicts that all his disciples will fall away.

Luke places the bread and wine scene before the accusation against Judas

John has a baptism scene before the accusation against Judas scene.

It seems that the synoptic gospel writers have substituted a simpler sharing of the bread and wine ceremony for the more complicated, but egalitarian "everybody wash everybody's feet" ceremony that Jesus commands.

Note this baptism ceremony supports the theory that the Jesus text was derived from a prior John the Baptist text with the name of Jesus simply being substituted for John which was in the proto-John text.

Still, it is interesting that Luke changes the order of the Mark/Matthew bread and wine scene to before the accusation against Judas.

There is another little statement within the passage that needs to be examined: the statement about Jesus not drinking again. Mark and Matthew have it in the same order indicating that one has copied directly from the other.

Mark:
Matthew:
But Luke has the line in a different order:

Luke's structure is more complicated than Mark/Matthew's structure.

A= distribution of bread
B= explanation of bread as body
C=distribution of wine
D=explanation of wine as blood
E=not eating until father's kingdom
F=not drinking until father's kingdom

The structure of Mark and Matthew are the same:

A, B, C, D, F

The structure of Luke is
E, C, F, A, B, C₁, D

Now look at Paul

Paul's structure is
A, B, C, D, E, F

What we notice is that Paul has the simplest structure. Luke has the most complicated. I believe that this is because he is trying to harmonize more text.

Here is my explanation:

Mark/Matthew has simply left out "E" (not eating until Father's Kingdom) from Paul's formula. Luke has placed "E" first. This seems to be a deliberate movement. Luke wants to emphasize "not eating until Father's Kingdom". We can presume that he is responsible for it not being in Mark/Matthew. He wants to show their gospels as defective and his as the true and accurate one.

Luke also doubles "C", but the second "C" is a libation. He is speaking to a more Greek audience, so he is adding a more Greek touch to the ceremony, pouring a libation, instead of just the more Jewish drink in remembrance of God part of the ceremony.

Luke also uses the words of Paul to show that he is a more exact and accurate gospel.

Mark or Matthew have gotten the ceremony from Paul. (I can't tell if Mark copied Matthew or Matthew copied Paul).Their "major change has to do with the phrase ""For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup,"you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes" They change it into "I tell you I shall not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom." Mark or Matthew has to change Paul's line because it implies that the resurrection never happened.

My conclusion is that John has a Baptism ceremony. which is earlier than the bread and wine ceremony.
Paul substitutes the bread and wine ceremony for the Baptism ceremony, claiming to get it from God. Mark or Matthew get it from him and the other copies it. Luke is later. He copies from Paul and cuts from Mark and Matthew.

Sincerely,

Phiilosopher Jay