neilgodfrey wrote:
Even though it's the default position among most scholars, it seems, I don't think there is any justification for believing that the evangelists were interested in "recording historical facts". Humphreys' offers a series of explanations that some will appeal to if they believe this is what the evangelists were doing. But others will see Humphreys' theory as just another apologetically motivated attempt at gospel harmonization.
I agree that some will, “see Humphreys’ theory as just another apologetically motivated attempt at gospel harmonization,” but I think that it would be a mistake to do so.
In another context (
http://vridar.org/2014/01/31/jesus-forg ... no-memory/), Neil writes, “The entire historical Jesus quandary and uncertainties surrounding Christian origins are all generated by the problems tossed up by the historical Jesus model. Mythicism is generated by a recognition that the historical model hasn’t worked.”
I think that Humphreys’ theory about the last days of Jesus is an important first step toward showing that the historical model can work.
When I say that Humphreys’ theory works, I have in mind the principles that are described in chapters 2, 3, and 6 of Richard Carrier’s book Proving History (PH).
I have read, vetted, and discussed a lot of different theories about the last days of Jesus. I have compiled a lengthy list of potential and actual objections to Humphreys’ theory. After all of this study, I have come to the conclusion that Humphreys’ theory is different from other theories because it actually works. I think it explains the evidence better than any other theory.
However, I am very aware of how difficult it is to reach agreements on topics like this.
On page 79 of PH, Carrier writes, “Thus, just as with our priors, we base our estimates for the consequents on what we know about the world, people, the culture and historical context in question, and everything else. This means that there are four ways to misuse the evidence. You can put things in [background knowledge] or [evidence] that shouldn’t be there, or fail to include things in [background knowledge] or [evidence] that should be there.”
I think that one of the most important reasons for the disagreements between the various sides in this debate is the fact that it has not been possible to come to agreements about what to include and what to exclude from background knowledge and evidence.
I encourage everyone to take a look at Humphreys’ book and see if it makes sense.
neilgodfrey wrote:
Humphreys' theory, as I understand it, assumes the evangelists were in full knowledge of the same historical facts and that they were interested in recording accurately some details of those facts. It also assumes that despite the evidence that the evangelists knew of each others' work, or at least the work of one other, they chose not to explain to readers why their accounts differed so starkly from an earlier work. They chose to write just enough from a clearly theological perspective even though their account sounded like a complete contradiction to another account all but those in the know.
First, to be clear, the differences that are being discussed here are differences between John, on the one hand, and the Synoptics (i.e. Mark, Matthew, and Luke), on the other. The Synoptics seem to describe the Last Supper as an authentic Passover meal and John seems to imply that the Passover meal was scheduled for the evening after the execution of Jesus. This looks, prima facie, like a blatant contradiction.
It is certainly true that the gospel writers did not leave us with a detailed, technical explanation of their apparent or real differences regarding the timing of the Last Supper and execution of Jesus. However, I think that they did give us hints about what they were doing. On page 152, Humphreys writes, “If the synoptic gospel writers used a different calendar from the official one to describe the last supper as a Passover meal, we might expect them to have at least hinted at this. I believe that they did. Indeed, I believe that they gave a clear clue that their original audience would have had no difficulty in understanding.”
The most basic version of Humphreys’ argument for different calendars is based on John 11:55 and Mark 14:12.
John 11:55 says, “When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, many went up from the country to Jerusalem.”
This verse in John seems to reference a particular type of Passover.
Mark 14:12 says, “On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb, Jesus’ disciples asked him, ‘Where do you want us to go and make preparations for you to eat the Passover?’”
It is widely acknowledged that there may be a problem with this verse in Mark. The problem is that it appears to be self-contradictory. In the official first-century Jewish calendar, the Passover lambs were sacrificed on Nisan 14 and the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread was on Nisan 15. Humphreys remarks (on page 152) that, “So Mark appears to contradict himself. A modern-day equivalent would be for me to write: ‘On Boxing Day [December 26], when it was customary to prepare the dinner for Christmas Day [December 25].’” This remark accurately captures the basic problem that a lot of other scholars have noticed previously.
In the following pages of Chapter 11, Humphreys argues that this verse in Mark should be taken as evidence that the author of Mark was using a different calendar (from John). He argues that the reason why this verse in Mark looks self-contradictory is that scholars have been assuming that Mark was using a calendar in which the day was reckoned from sunset to sunset. He argues that Mark was actually using a calendar in which the day was reckoned from sunrise to sunrise. (I think that there are several additional indications that the writers of the Synoptics were using a different calendar with a sunrise to sunrise reckoning of the day when describing the events in the last week, but I will have to write about that later.)
This is obviously a highly abbreviated version of the argument. For the details, see Humphreys’ book The Mystery of the Last Supper.