Bob Price on the first evangelist as a collector (and not only as a writer)

[Giuseppe]

I am giving up to believe that the Earliest Gospel was written by a writer who had the full control of what he was writing. For example, Klinghardt has used the literary perfectionism (in terms of chiliastic structures, pun names, allegories, hidden meanings, etc) of the Gospel of Mark as an argument against Markan priority, more than supporting it. The reality is that the evangelist used his freedom in the choice of the sources, but often the sources themselves were fabricated in different circles.

In accord with Trajectories in Early Christianity and A Myth of Innocence, I want to peer beneath the surface of the canonical gospels. We may stand to discover some pretty interesting things if we abandon the logocentric approach whereby we have assumed each gospel writer had and set forth his own Christology. This approach produced harmonizations in the name of synthesis. But various texts continue to expose the hoax. What I propose is that each evangelist employed bits and pieces from prior Jesus stories in new and inconsistent combinations. But if we start to do some archaeological delving beneath the familiar surface layer, we may unearth earlier pictures, i.e., understandings, of Jesus that were consistent throughout and which conformed to different genres of which only incongruent vestiges remain in the "official" canonical texts. Bruce Chilton has famously declared "A text is not a tel". But maybe he's wrong. Hand me that pick and shovel!

(Robert M. Price, The Gospels behind the Gospels, p. 18, my bold)

Sometimes this same approach of Price doesn't make sense at all. For example, he interprets the John the Baptist's question 'Or should we wait for another?' as expression of the reluctance, by the disciples of the John's sect, to accept willingly the news about "the Risen John" (=Jesus) as news related to their historical leader John the Baptist.

As usual, if Bob Price had mentioned Marcion, he would have found a more economical solution of the otherwise enigmatic pericope ("John the Baptist" stands for the Christians who didn't accept Marcion's alien Jesus).

Among the different 'layers' supposed by Bob Price, I find particularly intriguing the layer titled 'The Prophet like Moses'. Here Bob Price joins indirectly Dennis MacDonald's view of the first evangelist (the author of Q+) that would be a rewriting of Deuteronomy meant to make Jesus better than Moses.

To me, one question is obvious. Even unavoidable. What would such a large-scale chunk of material self-evidently painting Jesus in Mosaic colors be doing in a gospel advocating faith in Jesus as the Davidic Messiah? They're just not the same thing. It looks as if the compiler no longer understood the distinction. But whomever he borrowed the Mosaic Jesus material from knew the difference.

(ibid., p. 66, my bold)

I would add, as part and parcel of this pre-Gospel layer titled 'the Prophet like Moses', the same connection of Pilate with Jesus.

Remember that Pilate was the only Roman governor who slaughtered a lot of Samaritans: moreover, with the implicit satisfaction of the Judeans (not last: Josephus himself). In the words of Gerard Bolland:

According to an old reading, preserved in John 1:46 and 6:42, Jesus is a son of Joseph; now Joseph can generally stand for Jacob, Israel, Samaria, as can be seen in the parallel "Judah-Joseph" of Ezekiel 37:16, and also stated by Josephus, according to whom the Samaritans were pleased to call themselves "sons of Joseph" ( Ant. 11:8, 6). That those sons of Joseph were killed in 35 on their holy mountain, where they had gathered under a zealous leader, we know from Josephus (Ant. 18:4, 1-2) and that "Judah" was just the man to rejoice over the slaughter of the "son of Joseph", we also know.

This explanation of the introduction of Pilate in the Gospel story proves, in my eyes, that the Price's approach is highly productive.


ADDENDA: remember that there was the messianic expectation about the Taheb that was seen as “the prophet like Moses” in the Samaritan tradition.

[Giuseppe]

It is in this precise point that the Dave Allen's reconstruction of the original Testimonium Flavianum is decisive to resolve the enigma. Resuming:

• a pre-Gospel layer was about Jesus as 'the Prophet like Moses';

• Samaritans expected also a 'Prophet like Moses';

• Pilate was famous as the slaughterer of Samaritans, i.e. of so-called 'Sons of Joseph'.

• The early Christians being Jews (accordingly: rivals of Samaritans), then a better candidate for the role of the 'Prophet like Moses' was not the Samaritan false prophet slain by Pilate, but the contemporary unnamed Jewish rebel, himself slain by Pilate, reported by Josephus where there is now the Testimonium Flavianum.

This explains why: SUB PONTIO PILATO

[rgprice]

I'm not sure why he thinks that Mark states that Jesus is a Davidic messiah. No it doesn't. In Mark 10 someone calls Jesus a son of David, but Jesus never acknowledges the title. Then in 12:

Mark 12:
35 While Jesus was teaching in the temple, he said, “How can the scribes say that the Messiah[e] is the son of David? 36 David himself, by the Holy Spirit, declared,

‘The Lord said to my Lord,
“Sit at my right hand,
until I put your enemies under your feet.” ’

37 “David himself calls him Lord, so how can he be his son?” And the large crowd was listening to him with delight.

I guess one can argue that 10 and 12 are in conflict, and thus support Dr. Price's argument that Mark is not well sorted on this matter, but I wouldn't say that Mark advocates the view that Jesus was Davidic.

[Giuseppe]

Surely a redaction in Mark would make Jesus davidic (in primis: his coming from Nazareth, netser meaning branch; and the expression "king of the Jews" found in mouth of Pilate and as titulus crucis).

But then the influence of Deuteronomy on the gospels (included Mark) is good evidence supporting the identification of Jesus with "the Prophet like Moses". If Jesus is not davidic, then the remaining alternatives are that he was "the Prophet like Moses" or that he was the Marcion's Jesus Son of unknown Father: surely Marcion would like in the Gospel rewriting of Deuteronomy in nuce the idea of a Jesus surpassing polemically Moses.

[Giuseppe]

I wouldn't say that Mark advocates the view that Jesus was Davidic.

for Bob Price, probably "Mark" was embarrassed about the Mosaic Jesus:

For instance , Kingsbury is hell-bent on synthesizing a Markan Christology of Jesus as the "royal Son of God", the Scion of David - despite Mark 12:35-37 directly refuting Davidic descent of the Messiah. No, er, ha, Jesus just meant the Christ is, uh, the son of David and then some. Yeah, that's the ticket!
Does Mark actually say that some (whether in Jesus' day or his own) believed Jesus was "the Prophet like Moses" (Deut. 18:25, 18)? In Mark 6:15 and 8:28 we read that some deemed him "one of the prophets of old". Buth which one? Surely Moses, as John knows when his version (John 1:21) changes this to "Are you the Prophet?" That is, the expected Prophet like Moses, whom to reject means excommunication from the people of God (Acts 3:23; Deut. 18:19 plus Lev. 23:29). After all, who else could people have in mind? Obadiah? Nahum? Gad? Not likely. Plus the fact that, as Terence Collins demonstrates, the so-called Writing Prophets are essentially literary characters (even if based on real charismatics) modeled upon the Moses character. Also remember how John 4:25-26 has the Samaritan woman, eager to change the subject as Jesus is beginning to get a bit too personal, mentions the coming Mosaic Taheb (for that was the Samaritan Messiah analog), and Jesus says that's who he is! In plain terms, he is the predicted Prophet like Moses.

(Ibid., p. 53, my bold)

[rgprice]

Neither. It goes back to Paul. And specifically, Marcion's version of the Pauline letters, as that is likely closer to what Mark would have been using. Clearly the canonical version has been heavily interpolated with proto-orthodox propaganda.

But when we remove the interpolations, the Pauline letters are both in opposition to Moses and also pay no tribute to David.

Quite plainly, Jesus is the Lord, the Second Power. Trying to pigeonhole Jesus as either David or Mosaic is reading too much through orthodox Jewish lenses. I'm surprised Dr. Price makes this mistake. We shouldn't be trying to read the Gospels like a Jew from the 7th century...

[Giuseppe]

We shouldn't be trying to read the Gospels like a Jew from the 7th century...

Then you should count "John" (author) among Jews from the 7th century :

Mark 6:15, So they said, “Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”

John 1:21: Are you the Prophet?” He answered, “No.”

[Giuseppe]

Quite plainly, Jesus is the Lord, the Second Power. Trying to pigeonhole Jesus as either David or Mosaic is reading too much through orthodox Jewish lenses.

the "Prophet like Jesus" explains easily why the mythical guy had to be called Jesus/Joshua: wasn't Joshua the better candidate to surpass Moses?