Passover & the passion narrative before Mark.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

The wording is changed more than the story because ...

My point is that the story in Mark 14:3/John 12:1 is changed more than the wording.

[Ben C. Smith]

The wording is changed more than the story because ...

My point is that the story in Mark 14:3/John 12:1 is changed more than the wording.

I get that, but what I do not get is how you are using the term "source" here:

- The story is changed in important ways.
- But John has several direct quotations of Mark’s story.

I think that it should be the other way around in the “source model”: the wording is changed more than the story.

One sees here rather creative writers at work than redactors of sources.

It sounds like you are saying that John did not use Mark as a source for this story, and vice versa. But is that what you are saying?

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

.
I did not intend to argue. It was more of a memory of my own considerations.

1) What I wished to say was that I do not have a greater doubt, that John's primary source was Mark, but that the question of the source is entirely irrelevant. One can not understand John's story, if it is understood as an edition of Mark. The story must be understood as part of John's narrative (as part of the Lazarus/Mary/Martha-stories and perhaps as a foreshadowing of the washing of the feet).


2) I think that the same is true for Luke (Pro-Lk, Mc). A look at the table.

Luke shares the following informations and words with Mark and John
Luke shares the following informations and words with Mark
Luke shares the following informations and words with John

Mark	Luke	John
3 And while he was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he was reclining at table, a woman came with an alabaster flask (ἀλάβαστρον) of ointment (μύρου) of pure (πιστικῆς) nard, very costly, and she broke the flask and poured it over his head. 4 There were some who said to themselves indignantly, “Why was the ointment wasted like that? 5 For this ointment could have been sold for more than three hundred denarii and given to the poor.” And they scolded her. 6 But Jesus said, “Leave (Ἄφετε) her alone. Why do you trouble her? She has done a beautiful thing to me. 7 For you always have the poor with you, and whenever you want, you can do good for them. But you will not always have me. 8 She has done what she could; she has anointed my body beforehand for burial. 9 And truly, I say to you, wherever the gospel is proclaimed in the whole world, what she has done will be told in memory of her.”	36 One of the Pharisees asked him to eat with him, and he went into the Pharisee’s house and reclined at the table. 37 And behold, a woman of the city, who was a sinner, when she learned that he was reclining at table in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster flask (ἀλάβαστρον) of ointment (μύρου), 38 and standing behind him at his feet, weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears and wiped them with the hair of her head and kissed his feet and anointed them with the ointment. 39 Now when the Pharisee who had invited him saw this, he said to himself, “If this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what sort of woman this is who is touching him, for she is a sinner.” 40 And Jesus answering said to him, “Simon, I have something to say to you.” And he answered, “Say it, Teacher.” 41 “A certain moneylender had two debtors. One owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. 42 When they could not pay, he cancelled the debt of both. Now which of them will love him more?” 43 Simon answered, “The one, I suppose, for whom he cancelled the larger debt.” And he said to him, “You have judged rightly.” 44 Then turning toward the woman he said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave me no water for my feet, but she has wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. 45 You gave me no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not ceased to kiss my feet. 46 You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet (ἤλειψεν τοὺς πόδας μου) with ointment . 47 Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven—for she loved much. But he who is forgiven (ἀφίεται) little, loves little.” 48 And he said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.” 49 Then those who were at table with him began to say among themselves, “Who is this, who even forgives sins?” 50 And he said to the woman, “Your faith (πίστις) has saved you; go in peace.”	1 Six days before the Passover, Jesus therefore came to Bethany, where Lazarus was, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. 2 So they gave a dinner for him there. Martha served, and Lazarus was one of those reclining with him at table. 3 Mary therefore took a pound of expensive ointment (μύρου) made from pure (πιστικῆς) nard, and anointed the feet of Jesus (ἤλειψεν τοὺς πόδας τοῦ Ἰησοῦ) and wiped his feet with her hair. The house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume. 4 But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples (he who was about to betray him), said, 5 “Why was this ointment not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor?” 6 He said this, not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief, and having charge of the moneybag he used to help himself to what was put into it. 7 Jesus said, “Leave (Ἄφες) her alone, so that she may keep it for the day of my burial. 8 For the poor you always have with you, but you do not always have me.”

I would like to highlight a crazy detail. In Luke's story the criticism against the woman has nothing to do with the sale of the ointment for a lot of money and the support of the poor. There is criticism that she is a sinner.

But lo and behold - the topic of "money" plays also a role in Luke's story (one of the many money-parables of the double tradition) and the word “denarius” is also available (only 14 occurrences in the Gospels).

In an earlier discussion Ben and I discussed the point that Luke's parable of the fig tree is thematically related to Mark's story of the cursing of the fig tree. The parable or the story could be the “fig tree”-source. But here Luke's parable has nothing to do with the discussion in Mark's or John's story.

Likewise the sinner. I would say that in canonical Luke the angel of Gethsemane plays a more similar role to Mark's anonymous woman than the sinner.


3) In Mark's version is a good literary shaping.

- There is a person with a name and more detailed description who does not play any role (Simon the leper) and there are people who play important roles but their identity is completely uncertain (the woman and the “some”). Everything is focused on action and statements.

- The story contains some very expressive details: the “leper”, the “breaking” of the alabaster flask, the “spikenard” perfume, the “indignation” of the some and the “scolding” of the woman.

- The reasoning of Jesus seems to follow ancient rhetorical rules in a hard talk.


4) In each of the three versions the action of the woman is a work of love. But only in Mark and Matthew the action is a strange anointing of a suffering Messiah and a preparation of his way to death. In Luke it is only about love and devotion. John combines both themes, but in a weakened form.

Luke's story has almost questionable erotic overtones. John present a colourful lifelike atmosphere with one bad guy (Judas) and Mark only a dark sketch with an effort argumentative Jesus.

We read three different stories from three different writers. Two of them may be inspired by Mark. But a question about possible sources seems more or less irrelevant.

[Ben C. Smith]

What I wished to say was that I do not have a greater doubt, that John's primary source was Mark, but that the question of the source is entirely irrelevant. One can not understand John's story, if it is understood as an edition of Mark. The story must be understood as part of John's narrative (as part of the Lazarus/Mary/Martha-stories and perhaps as a foreshadowing of the washing of the feet).

Okay, I see, and I understand. I wanted to make sure I was comprehending you since my own perspective is quite different, as you may suspect. I completely agree that there is great benefit to reading the Johannine version precisely as a Johannine pericope within the gospel of John itself. I also happen to be interested in source criticism, however, so I also see great benefit in trying to determine whether John got the story from Mark, from Luke, from Matthew, from oral tradition, from some lost source, or from his own imagination (thus making his work the source for the others). So from my perspective the question of sources is hardly irrelevant, as I feel certain you realize.

I would like to highlight a crazy detail. In Luke's story the criticism against the woman has nothing to do with the sale of the ointment for a lot of money and the support of the poor. There is criticism that she is a sinner.

But lo and behold - the topic of "money" plays also a role in Luke's story (one of the many money-parables of the double tradition) and the word “denarius” is also available (only 14 occurrences in the Gospels).

The Lucan preoccupation with money is well known, true. But, then again, so is the Lucan interest in sinners.

3) In Mark's version is a good literary shaping.

- There is a person with a name and more detailed description who does not play any role (Simon the leper) and there are people who play important roles but their identity is completely uncertain (the woman and the “some”). Everything is focused on action and statements.

True, and good point.

- The story contains some very expressive details: the “leper”, the “breaking” of the alabaster flask, the “spikenard” perfume, the “indignation” of the some and the “scolding” of the woman.

Yes, I love that about Mark.

We read three different stories from three different writers. Two of them may be inspired by Mark. But a question about possible sources seems more or less irrelevant.

Well, not for me.

In fact, something that interests me a great deal is the honing of our collective skills and methodologies in identifying the presence of sources. I ponder various thought experiments to this end; for example, if we did not possess Mark, would we be able to read Matthew and Luke and make an educated guess that both were drawing on a lost source? Or would we be able to come up with ways in which no such lost source is deemed necessary to explain what Luke did to Matthew or what Matthew did to Luke? Part of my skepticism about reconstructing the extent of lost sources comes from this particular thought experiment, among others: if Mark were no longer extant, I suspect we would have a lot of difficulty keeping the Q and Mark material separate in our reconstruction (though I am all in favor of honing my skills in that area, as well, if possible). And yet, overall, I see pretty good reasons in Matthew (for example) to posit a source like Mark, at least for individual pericopae, as an explanation for some of the tensions and inconsistencies. Naturally, then, it is when I find tensions and inconsistencies of a similar nature in Mark that I start to suspect a pre-Marcan source.

But of course, since I am looking for tensions and inconsistencies, there is no one-size-fits-all methodology that will apply to all pericopae in a text. I am at the mercy of the author/redactor. The particular instance of the anointing of Jesus, present in some form in all 4 canonical gospels, does not seem to me to be very fertile ground for considerations of source, because I do not see a lot of internal tensions or contradictions in each account. (Or, if they are there, I have not sussed them out yet.) I do think that John may give us an indication that his readers have seen this story before (by telling us about Mary's deed, in 11.2, before she even actually does it in 12.1-8). But even here caution is in order, because the gospel of John shows signs of having been worked over pretty dramatically, both in wording and in sequence. I doubt we will ever be able to reconstruct what happened, not without fortuitously finding some lost text in the desert, but the indications that something happened are there. Overall, however, with respect to the anointing, I do not think the pericope offers very much to disprove any source theory.

My apologies for what was probably a lot more information than you really wanted or needed. Cheers.

Ben.

[Charles Wilson]

We read three different stories from three different writers. Two of them may be inspired by Mark. But a question about possible sources seems more or less irrelevant.

Well, not for me.

KK and Ben.

Very nice discussion between the two of you.

I think it DOES make a difference if the Source here is, for example, Queen Salome annointing Alexander Jannaeus at his death. According to Josephus, Jannaeus has a Quartan Ague or something, and some of the Malarials produce an odor in the Host. If it is about Salome (I believe it is) then it is also an In-Your-Face Cynical rewrite. "You think you'll be remembered for your devotion to your Husband, the King and High Priest Jannaeus? HA!...We'll even rewrite that!"

Be that as it may, I believe that it is important.

Thanx,

CW

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

In fact, something that interests me a great deal is the honing of our collective skills and methodologies in identifying the presence of sources. I ponder various thought experiments to this end;

Suppose you could identify the presence of a source of Mark (a Jesus-tradition) on the base of tensions and inconsistencies. What's the use of it? I'm just curious. You'll never know

- what type of source it is

- which link in the chain it is

You could be here ......... Ur-source -> Mark

or there .................... Ur-source -> s 1 -> s 2 ..................... -> s 10 -> Mark

[Ben C. Smith]

In fact, something that interests me a great deal is the honing of our collective skills and methodologies in identifying the presence of sources. I ponder various thought experiments to this end;

Suppose you could identify the presence of a source of Mark (a Jesus-tradition) on the base of tensions and inconsistencies. What's the use of it? I'm just curious. You'll never know

- what type of source it is

- which link in the chain it is

You could be here ......... Ur-source -> Mark

or there .................... Ur-source -> s 1 -> s 2 ..................... -> s 10 -> Mark

Both of those options have the same trajectory/direction (source -> Mark). Often the trajectory is all that one needs in order to draw conclusions and coordinate them with other data. In this case, for example, I have independent reasons to suspect that the Eucharist did not start out as a Passover meal; finding layering in Mark on precisely this point is helpful as confirmation (that is, the trajectories coincide: ordinary Eucharist -> Paschal Eucharist).

Discovering a source behind a text can also tell one about the author of that text. Manipulating sources is a bit different than freely composing, and seeing how s/he treated a source may help one see what is truly important to an author.

Dealing with sources in minor cases (with little at stake) can also give one practice for when the major cases (with much at stake) come along.

If those reasons are not enough, I leave you with the words famously attributed to George Mallory:

Question to Mallory: "Why did you want to climb Mount Everest?"
Answer from Mallory: "Because it's there."

Ben.

[Michael BG]

I too have wondered why Jesus' suffering/execution is connected to the Passover sacrifice in the NT, but is connected to the Day of Atonement ritual in Barnabas. The common wisdom is that Barnabas is more primitive than the NT Gospels, but why did the interpretive emphasis shift from the Day of Atonement sacrifice(s), which at least meshes with the NT theology of Christ's death as an atoning sacrifice for sins of ignorance, to a Passover sacrifice?

What do you mean by “Barnabas”?
Maxwell Staniforth in “Early Christian Writings” (1968) wrote, that the Epistle of Barnabas “would have been issued round about the year 130; and this, in fact, is the date now preferred by most scholars” (p 190).

[andrewcriddle]

I too have wondered why Jesus' suffering/execution is connected to the Passover sacrifice in the NT, but is connected to the Day of Atonement ritual in Barnabas. The common wisdom is that Barnabas is more primitive than the NT Gospels, but why did the interpretive emphasis shift from the Day of Atonement sacrifice(s), which at least meshes with the NT theology of Christ's death as an atoning sacrifice for sins of ignorance, to a Passover sacrifice?

What do you mean by “Barnabas”?
Maxwell Staniforth in “Early Christian Writings” (1968) wrote, that the Epistle of Barnabas “would have been issued round about the year 130; and this, in fact, is the date now preferred by most scholars” (p 190).

The Epistle of Barnabas is almost certainly later than the canonical Gospels but it may be independent of them. (Some regard Barnabas 4:14 as the scripture saith, many are called but few are chosen as a quotatio from Matthew but this is controversial)

If Barnabas is independent of the Gospels then it could possibly represent a more primitive tradition.

Andrew Criddle

[Charles Wilson]

The wording is changed more than the story because the original eyewitness write-up of it was in Aramaic. In the translation to Greek contrasting words were used that mean the same thing.
Neither Mark nor John copied each other. They stem from a common source.

The following is from Teeple's Literary Origin of the Gospel of John, ISBN-13: 978-0914384007. Simply: A great book. Great.
"S" = Source. "E" = Editor. "R" = Redactor.

S:
l Then Jesus [arth. ], six days before the Passover, came into Bethany

E:
Lazarus [an.] was [suggested by 11:1], whom Jesus [an. P66, B, S*; lac. in P75] raised from the dead.,

S:
2 Then they made for him a supper there,

R :
and Martha [arth. in B, s; lac. in P75] served. And Lazarus [arth.] was one of those reclining with [sun] him.

S:
3 Then Mary [arth. ], having taken a litra of pure, costly nard ointment, anointed the feet of Jesus [arth. in P66, S; lac. in P75] and wiped his feet with her hair. And the house was filled with the aroma of the ointment.

4 And says one of [part. gen] his disciples,

R:
Judas [an. def.] the Iscariot, the one being about to betray him,

S:
"Why was this ointment not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor?”

This is Teeple's Analysis of the Chapter 12 Passge. Notice that there is no "G" (= Gnostic) evidence that Teeple sees. This is strictly a matter of Source and Redactor with Editor making an appearance to tell us the Jesus did indeed raise Lazarus from the dead.

All well and good. Is there any evidence that any of this is worth looking into? Yes. Verse 1: "Then Jesus [arth. ], six days before the Passover, came into Bethany "

Why does this matter?

Numbers 9: 4 - 14 (RSV):

[4] So Moses told the people of Israel that they should keep the passover.
[5] And they kept the passover in the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month, in the evening, in the wilderness of Sinai; according to all that the LORD commanded Moses, so the people of Israel did.
[6] And there were certain men who were unclean through touching the dead body of a man, so that they could not keep the passover on that day; and they came before Moses and Aaron on that day;
[7] and those men said to him, "We are unclean through touching the dead body of a man; why are we kept from offering the LORD's offering at its appointed time among the people of Israel?"
[8] And Moses said to them, "Wait, that I may hear what the LORD will command concerning you."
[9] The LORD said to Moses,
[10] "Say to the people of Israel, If any man of you or of your descendants is unclean through touching a dead body, or is afar off on a journey, he shall still keep the passover to the LORD.
[11] In the second month on the fourteenth day in the evening they shall keep it; they shall eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs.
[12] They shall leave none of it until the morning, nor break a bone of it; according to all the statute for the passover they shall keep it.
[13] But the man who is clean and is not on a journey, yet refrains from keeping the passover, that person shall be cut off from his people, because he did not offer the LORD's offering at its appointed time; that man shall bear his sin.
[14] And if a stranger sojourns among you, and will keep the passover to the LORD, according to the statute of the passover and according to its ordinance, so shall he do; you shall have one statute, both for the sojourner and for the native."

Numbers 19:

[11] "He who touches the dead body of any person shall be unclean seven days;
[12] he shall cleanse himself with the water on the third day and on the seventh day, and so be clean; but if he does not cleanse himself on the third day and on the seventh day, he will not become clean.
[13] Whoever touches a dead person, the body of any man who has died, and does not cleanse himself, defiles the tabernacle of the LORD, and that person shall be cut off from Israel; because the water for impurity was not thrown upon him, he shall be unclean; his uncleanness is still on him.
[14] "This is the law when a man dies in a tent: every one who comes into the tent, and every one who is in the tent, shall be unclean seven days.
[15] And every open vessel, which has no cover fastened upon it, is unclean.
[16] Whoever in the open field touches one who is slain with a sword, or a dead body, or a bone of a man, or a grave, shall be unclean seven days.
[17] For the unclean they shall take some ashes of the burnt sin offering, and running water shall be added in a vessel;

Remember GJohn here: "Then they made for him a supper there,"

Somebody knows something here and they ain't tellin'.

There is evidence that this is Source at verse 1. There was someone who studied the Book of Numbers from that Time Frame: Johanen ben Zakkai.

Perhaps we should look at Teeple a little more deeply.

CW