Citsonga

And, as if that wasn't bad enough, Christians also have to deal with details from the other gospels, such as Jesus being sent to Herod and then back to Pilate, etc. It is, in my estimation, rather inconceivable for all the supposed events of the trial and crucifixion to have taken place in the amount of time allotted.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Ben,

Thanks for this link. Goodacre's hypothesis is quite eloquent and clever. I like his use of lyrics from the broadway musical Jesus Christ Superstar (an inspired and underrated theological tract) and its point about the passion narrative being the starting point for the gospels.

It suggests that history has been scriptorialized rather than scripture historicized to produce the passion narrative. Like a good episode of the Twilight Zone or a tale of the Oracle of Delphi, it ends with the prophecy being fulfilled in an unexpected way. In this case, the prophet Jesus knew that he was going to be executed at the time of the last supper and therefore told his followers to remember him. Jesus created the Eucharist, and his followers, while following the Eucharist, remembered the details of the last day of Jesus' life. This in turn led to Mark et al. creating the gospels.

Goodacre assigns the imaginary self-consciousness of the apostles regarding their future legend as evidenced in the Last Supper song from the musical Jesus Christ Superstar to Jesus himself.
But this leads us to the main problem with the hypothesis. Are we to accept it that Jesus, unlike any other person under his circumstances, knew he was going to be arrested that night and executed the next morning and therefore created a ceremony to commemorate his death and life?

This hypothesis gives Jesus credit for not only creating the Eucharist, but the Gospels too. It is squarely in the tradition of the best early Christian writings which gave Jesus credit for creating the world and Judaism too. Here Jesus creates the machinery for his own legend/history.

The hypothesis is difficult to swallow if we hold a mythical Jesus position.
We may also assume with equal evidence that the real Dracula, before his death, also told Bram Stoker his true story and Bram Stoker simply wrote it down or that Batman told his true story to Bob Kane who told it in comic book form. We can say that these are examples of what we may call autobiography fictionalized.

It is only marginally better if we hold an historical Jesus position. It is the case that certain people do dictate requests of their followers that they wish for them to follow upon their sudden death. Lenin's "Testament" (really a final political speech that he could not deliver due to illness) recommended the removal of Joseph Stalin as secretary-general and his replacement by someone "being more tolerant, more loyal, more polite and more considerate to the comrades, less capricious, etc." Still, this rather mundane and practical political maneuver, (not carried out by his followers, incidentally) contrasts markedly with Jesus' dramatic request that the Jewish Passover ceremony be redone into a ceremony commemorating him as opposed to a ceremony remembering the enslavement and liberation of the Hebrew people by their God.

One really wonders if a story in which Martin Luther King turns to his aids while dying on the hotel balcony in Memphis and says, "Please have the United States Congress pass a law declaring my birthday a national holiday," would be accepted by anyone as the reason for the origin of Martin Luther King Day?

What Goodacre proposes for the origin of the gospels may be seen itself as an aetiological myth. In fact, it may help us to understand how myths become aetiological. When the actual meaning of the conflict resolutions in a myth becomes controversial, an aetiological meaning gets assigned to diffuse the controversy. An incident within the myth gets assigned the function of explaining the reason for the myth and defusing the no longer morally acceptable conclusion of the myth. In this case Jesus' request to be remembered is used to explain the existence of the entire narration. The conflicts between Romans and Jews no longer able to hold our interests.

I prefer to think that the myth of Daphne was about the subjugation of women and not derived from Apollo's love of Laurel trees. I prefer to think that the passion narrative is about the Roman-Judaic political conflict of the First century and not derived from Jesus' wisdom/prophetic foreknowledge of the future.

PhilosopherJay

Hi All,

I've been thinking about this. Whether the source material is a play or some kind of liturgical ceremony or even oral history, we still have to account for the events not fitting into the three hour time frame that Mark gives them.

It seems that it is the Barabbas release event that really pushes the time line out of whack. Without that one hour event, everything else fits into the three hour time line, and everything else seems to follow naturally and logically from the story. Only the Barabbas event can be taken out without changing very much.

It is interesting to compare the other gospels' treatment of the incident. Matthew and Luke basically repeat and add details to Mark. However John gives a quite different version of the event:

Quote:

18.37 Pilate said to him, "So you are a king?" Jesus answered, "You say that I am a king. For this I was born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth. Every one who is of the truth hears my voice." 18.38 Pilate said to him, "What is truth?" After he had said this, he went out to the Jews again, and told them, "I find no crime in him. 18.39 But you have a custom that I should release one man for you at the Passover; will you have me release for you the King of the Jews?" 18.40 They cried out again, "Not this man, but Barabbas!" Now Barabbas was a robber. 19.1 Then Pilate took Jesus and scourged him.19.2 And the soldiers plaited a crown of thorns, and put it on his head, and arrayed him in a purple robe; 19.3 they came up to him, saying, "Hail, King of the Jews!" and struck him with their hands. 19.4 Pilate went out again, and said to them, "See, I am bringing him out to you, that you may know that I find no crime in him." 19.5 So Jesus came out, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe. Pilate said to them, "Behold the man!" 19.6 When the chief priests and the officers saw him, they cried out, "Crucify him, crucify him!" Pilate said to them, "Take him yourselves and crucify him, for I find no crime in him." 19.7 The Jews answered him, "We have a law, and by that law he ought to die, because he has made himself the Son of God." 19.8 When Pilate heard these words, he was the more afraid; 19.9 he entered the praetorium again and said to Jesus,

Notice that in this version Pilate is not asking a crowd of feasting Jews, but he is asking the Jewish high priests who he should release. This basically makes the Barabbas incident a part of the trial before Pilate. It eliminates the need for a new scene at the feast and the travel time that it involves.

I suggest that John is giving us the earlier version of the story. It is Mark who is interpolating what is essentially a new scene into the single longer scene of John. Why does Mark find it necessary to make the incident more elaborate and ruin his timeline in the process?

"Barabbas," we know, means "Son of the Father". Jesus, we know, often calls himself the son of the father. It seems to me that the original scene involved a comical confusion involving the two titles of Jesus. The chief priests want "The Son of the Father" released, but not "The King of the Jews".

The fact that Pilate, in offering to release Jesus, refers to Jesus as "The King of the Jews," a title, not the name Jesus, suggests that Barabbas should be read as the title "Son of the Father".

So it seems that the whole incident involves a trick that Pilate plays on the Jewish priests. He offers to release a man to them citing an absurd ancient custom (probably one that he has made up on the spur of the moment). He asks priests about releasing the "King of the Jews." They know that he means Jesus, so they refuse the release. Pilate then comes back with the title "Son of the Father" (Barabbas) and the Jews are so stupid that they do not realize that he is still talking about Jesus. They consent to his release. Pilate has him scourged and mocked and then releases Jesus. The Jews realize that Pilate has tricked them. He has released Jesus to them. When they see him, they cry "Crucify him, crucify him." Pilate lets him off saying that he has done no wrong.

The Jews now attack Jesus for saying that he is the son of God, which is the same as Barabbas, "Son of the Father." It is now Pilate who realizes that he has been tricked and goes back to interrogating Jesus.

We may presume that in the earlier version, it was Jesus who called himself the "Son of the Father"/Barabbas. Pilate, not being able to speak Hebrew did not understand that Jesus was declaring that he was Son of God when he called himself "Bar Abbas."

We may take it that the statement "Now Barabbas was a robber" reflects what Pilate knew about Jesus. The term "Robber," as we know from Josephus, was simply the name that the Romans gave to Jewish revolutionaries.

We should also take the robber statement in conjunction with Mark's statement about Barabbas - (15.7) And among the rebels in prison, who had committed murder in the insurrection, there was a man called Barabbas.

Why does Mark add this information about Barabbas, when he knows that Jesus is Barabbas? The reason is that Mark wants his readers to think that Barabbas is a different man from Jesus. Why? Mark gives us the answer -- Barabbas has "committed murder in the insurrection". Mark does not want us to know that the earlier text says that Jesus (Barabbas) committed a murder and participated in an insurrection.

In trying to hide the fact that he had a text revealing that Jesus was both an anti-Roman, Pro-Jewish revolutionary and a murderer, Mark created the prisoner release ceremony, which was simply part of a clever ruse made up by Pilate to get Jesus released.

Why would Pilate want to release an anti-Roman, Pro-Jewish Revolutionary? The answer is that he wouldn't. The original scene probably took place with King Herod and not Pilate judging Jesus. The inclusion of Pilate was an updating of the original story. The Praetorium where Jesus' trial takes place in the gospels is the same Jerusalem Praetorium mentioned in Acts 23:35 where Paul gets put on trial (he said, "I will give you a hearing after your accusers arrive also," giving orders for him to be kept in Herod's Praetorium.) It is Herod's Praetorium, not Pilate's.

We should also note that John almost certainly had the fact that Jesus was a murderer as well as a robber/revolutionary in his gospel. We may take it that it was censored out either by Mark (most likely, in my opinion) or someone else at a later time. The statement that Barabbas was a robber is too terse for John's style, but fits Mark's style perfectly. There is no reason for Mark to add that there was an insurrection and he committed murder unless it was in the original text. Mark creates Barabbas and gives him the crime that Jesus himself has done in the earlier text.

Note that the fact that an earlier gospel text tells us that Jesus was an insurrectionist and murderer does not mean that Jesus was an historical character, but only that the story of Jesus being an insurrectionist did not meet the later demands of the later writers. Keep in mind that "Superman" was a villain in the original story by Joel Siegel.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

spamandham

Why? No-one expects movies, stories, etc. to exactly fit reality. The story incorporates magic that is central to the story. There is no intent here to portray actual historical events. IMHO, it takes a leap of faith to believe those central magical aspects were tacked on later via myth building.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Spamanham,

Within narratives, storytellers raise certain expectations. When these expectations deviate from the norm, the listener/viewer/reader must figure out why.

For example, if we are told that Cinderella has to be back from the ball by Midnight, we would be surprised if Cinderella went to the ball and Midnight passed and nothing happened. In narrative genres, both fiction or nonfiction, there are only a limited number of moves that are made. When those moves are ruined or changed, it is generally not hard to figure out why.

Deconstructing narratives based on the expectations they raise and do not fulfill is part of postmodern critical theory.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Clivedurdle

Kindly read Nazarenus about this!

http://www.nazarenus.com/

Clivedurdle

Act I: THE INDICTMENT
Before Annas
Before Caiaphas
The Physical Abuse
Before the Jewish Senate
..

grip_daddy

Why would anyone want to define "time" in a technical language yet examination of Mark does not insinuate a technical consideration of time?

The reading of Mark 15:1 gives an impression that the events of crucifixion started early on Friday morning. Remember also, the trial had started on Thursday night and this was just a continuation. It is a matter of common knowledge that there wasn't a break in trial from the previous evening so it is dishonest to limit the events to 1 hour or even 4 hours.

3am could as well be a good starting point for "morning".

PhilosopherJay

Hi clivdedurdle,

I have suggested that the source material was a mime play written by a woman who probably took the lead part of Mary in the early performance of the play. Her part was drastically cut in the later revisions.

I hope to return to that hypothesis in the future.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

PhilosopherJay

Hi Grip_Daddy,

This is an important point. Thanks. If Καὶ εὐθὺς πρωῒ does refer to the period 3 A.M. to 6 P.M., then the argument about the events not fitting the stated time by Mark falls apart.

Mark tells us clearly that the crucifixion took place at terce, the third hour from Sunrise, (15:25): "And it was the third hour, when they crucified him." The hours were measured from Sunrise. Since Mark gives us events at the third, sixth and ninth hours after Sunrise, if we assume that morning meant 3 A.M. to 6 P.M., then Mark would be using two different means of measuring time and switching between them. It is not impossible that he did so, but unless we have evidence to the contrary we should assume that he is using the same measure (from Sunrise AKA morning) in all four cases.


Here is a discussion that confirms that the Jewish concept of morning meant sunrise exclusively: http://www.houseofsteed.com/fjs/pdf/time.pdf

Here is another discussion that rejects the idea of morning meaning 3 A.M. to 6 A.M. in the Roman world altogether - http://www.errantyears.com/1998/nov98/001100.html.

Is there is any further evidence that Mark meant the period 3 A.M. to 6 A.M. when he spoke of morning? If not, we should assume what the evidence suggests, that he meant Sunrise.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay