Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

I know that quite a few posters on this forum lean in the direction of there being a vacuum between Paul and Mark, with Mark using little more than Paul, the scriptures, and his own wits (and possibly Homer) to compose his gospel; I would love to hear from you as to what you think the above materials are doing in Mark; do they mesh well with the overall Marcan program(me)? If so, how?

In my modest opinion, assuming the Markan priority (but I reject Q a priori), I don't find, how hard I try, no persuasive literary reason why Mark would have that material. First I thought that Mark had that material to defame the disciples of Jesus, representing them as deliberately pro-zealots as well as convey the message that they were so idiots as not to understand the true (more pacifist) message of Jesus (''defamation'' means here pure invention of that negative portrait). But then Gundry has shown that also Matthew wants to represent in a negative light Peter and the disciples, rather than rehabilitate them against Mark. This fact shows that we have only the testimony of the enemies of the original pillars (Peter, John, James, the 12?), so it is very probable that the absence of apologists of them (against what could be only the potential defamation by Mark and Matthew who did represent tendentiously them as pro-zealot) would confirm their historical real pro-zealot nature, or at least that their original gospel did preach what prof Avalos calls 'deferred violence' (just as the Essenes). Therefore, if Jesus existed and if Mark was the first Gospel, then I think that the BR's argument is very strong to prove his thesis about a seditious Jesus (as the argument goes, the 12 disciples were described as seditious by Mark and Matthew, 'therefore' the historical Jesus was a seditious Jew, too, since he was more close to his disciples than to Mark and Matthew). But I'm curious if the contrary can be proved too, that is, whether we can apply the Criterion of Embarrassment on seditious material and to prove so the historicity of Jesus. Bermejo-Rubio promises to publish an article where he intends to rehabilitate the CoE against the recent criticisms of it. I am curious to see his future case.

I also know that there are some posters on this forum who think that other gospel materials preceded Mark; I would love to hear from you, too, as to what you think the above materials mean for the kind of Jesus those earlier materials presented before Mark got to them.

If for 'gospel materials' you mean the gospel of Marcion (under my preferred scenario of Mcn priority), I see that prof Vinzent strives to show (at moments seeming as a Christian apologist in the operation) that the Jesus of Marcion was the most good and pacifist Jesus of all the Gospel Jesuses. According to him, the proto-Catholics were to portray Jesus as doing most violent acts (see the episode at Temple, not attested in Mcn), so as to superimpose on him the image of the violent and vengeful god of the Jews of the Old Testament, in order to show anti-marcionite continuity between OT and NT (at the cost of feeling a bit of embarrassment about that apparently seditious material). There is evidence that Tertullian did act like Bermejo-Rubio when he pointed out some examples of Gospel disiepta membra against Marcion, to persuade him that Jesus was not so good and only-loving after all....

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Fernando Bermejo-Rubio lists 35 indications of seditious activity on the part of Jesus,

Ben.

Ill touch on part of them.

Just as the sources retain incidents which show the existence of friendly relationships between Jesus and Pharisees

Must be noted I find no contradiction in this, as the Pharisees were a divided group in themselves between Hellenism and Zealots type philosophy.

or point to the fact that John the Baptist and Jesus were very similar figures

Understated by modern scholars. For me Jesus took over Johns movement after his murder. His teachings are Johns teachings repeated.

Johns teachings would never have hit any text, had Jesus not been martyred at Passover that generated the mythology and theology that captured these traditions.

they have also retained quite a few elements pointing in the direction of a seditious Jesus.

This is evidence for me of a Historical Jesus. No reason to make a seditious Aramaic Galilean oppressed peasant, a deity. Unless those were the cards one was dealt and had no choice but to run with what they had.

Romans had no need to make a peasant oppressed "semi slave" a deity to compete against the emperors divinity.

1) Jesus was crucified, i.e., executed with the usual Roman punishment for slaves and rebellious provincials, after the Roman governor pronounced sentence against him.

The governor probably did not sentence him, a trouble making peasant did not need a trial and Pilate and Caiaphas probably had standing orders for trouble makers, and more important matters at hand.

2) Two λῃσταί were crucified along with Jesus, and on either side of him. Jesus was crucified in the middle of two insurrectionists.

This may have some credibility.

3) The titulus crucis was ‘King of the Jews’. The massive presence of this title in Pilate’s interrogation indicates that it figured prominently as the basis of the accusation against Jesus, and the fact that Jesus is not recorded as denying the charge suggests that he considered himself as a king or God’s viceroy (see also Jn 19.21; Lk. 22.29–30).

Reaching.

IINRI may have been labeled from the time of crucifixion. But I don't buy the trial or his denial. This is rhetoric IMHO to build divinity as Jesus being so important he met all the top officials because he was so special

4) The mocking of Jesus by the soldiers in the employ of Rome, involving a burlesque parody of kingly epiphany (which includes clothing him in a purple cloak, putting on him a crown of thorns, and kneeling down in raillery homage to him: Mk

Literary creation, with the possibility of a small historical core

5) A heavily armed party was sent to seize Jesus secretly and at night (Mk 14.43, 48; Mt. 24.47, 52).

I buy this. Makes sense to stop riots by sending the goon squad out why the half a million ish attendants were sleeping it off. Best way to avoid a riot, in the tense atmosphere.

6) According to Lk. 22.36, on a critical occasion, Jesus ensured that his disciples were armed, by ordering them to buy swords
7) At least some disciples of Jesus, if not all of them, went about with concealed weapons, as attested by Lk. 22.38, 22.49 (‘Lord, shall we strike with the sword?’) and Mk 14.47, and implied in Lk. 22.36.
8) All four Gospels (Mk 14.47; Mt. 26.51; Lk. 22.38, 49–50; Jn 18.10–11) record that armed resistance (involving swords) was offered in Gethsemane.

Maybe. To Hellenist, Galileans were viewed as trouble makers, Zealots.

9) Besides the verbal violence implied in several sayings of Jesus (e.g. Mt. 10.34; Lk. 12.49), the Temple episode involved some sort of forcible activity. It is not clear what really happened there nor the scale of what happened, but it was carried out through harsh behaviour (see Jn 2.15).

Galileans, or Aramaic Galilean to be specific. Would not have been happy with the Hellenistic perversion in the temple, from having Melqart on the required silver coins in gods house, to the Roman oppression, to the Romans running the Israelite treasury and raping it at will [Pilate] The temple was on shaky ground with Pilates and Caiaphas life on the line to keep peace.

10) The ‘triumphal entry’ into Jerusalem was a prearranged action and involved a high messianic temperament and clear political claims in words and deeds, both from Jesus (who accepted without demur the kind of welcome reserved for a claimant to the throne) and his followers.

Crossan goes into this a little. I'm skeptical if its actually Jesus mocking Pilate, and a historical event.

I see it as rhetorical prose giving Jesus a grand entry like Pilate that plagiarized OT text.

11) Several passages in Mark (11.1–6, 11, 19; 14.12–16) describe preparations and Jesus’ activities in Jerusalem which presuppose secrecy and caution, clandestine connection with supporters within the city, and even the use of some kind of password.

No problem there.

12) According to Jn 11.47–50, the possibility that Jesus remains untroubled is connected by the high priest with a virtually sure intervention of the Romans, with serious consequences.

13) According to Jn 18.19, the high priest questioned Jesus not only about his teaching, but also about his disciples, what betrays a certain apprehension regarding Jesus’ circle.

Rhetoric building authority

14) The preaching of the imminent arrival of the Kingdom of God had an unmistakably political character. The establishment of God’s will ‘on earth’ (Mt. 6.10/Lk. 11.2) would leave no place for the Roman rule, as it entails the longing for an approaching national deliverance.

Hellenistic theological interpretation of a Galilean political move.

15) Jesus promised that his twelve disciples would sit on thrones to judge and rule Israel’s twelve restored tribes, what implies the disappearance of the actual rulers of Israel, both Romans and Jews.
16) The concrete socio-political, material dimension of the kingdom of God expected by Jesus and his disciples is further proved by the hopes to grant and receive material, this-worldly rewards (Mk 10.28–30, 35–41; Lk. 22.24, 30; see Mk 9.33).
17) According to the disciples’ own statements, Jesus’ aim was to restore the kingdom to Israel. Both in Lk. 24.21 and Acts 1.6, Jesus does not revise his disciples’ view of the kingdom, but only their conception of its imminence.

Plagiarized rhetoric

(at least some of) the material antedate the gospels?

.

Mark is the work of a community that compiled written and oral traditions as the falling of the temple changed how they shared traditions at Passover since the movement started.

All of the statements are a Hellenistic theological and rhetorical retelling of the socioeconomic divisions the Galileans faced as oppressed peasants that antedate the gospels.

Now, set aside for a moment the notion of whether (at least some of) the material must be historical if it runs counter to the tendencies of the gospel authors

The possible source and historicity, has a direct connection with the amount of material that antedate the gospels.

maryhelena wrote: ......The triumphal entry, to my thinking, relates to Antigonus entry to Jerusalem in 40 b.c.

.

Yet Pilate made such an entry in the time period suggested.


When using rhetorical prose to build divinity and authority, you place your literary creation in as close to a time period as possible and there is the possibility of a said character mocking this entry.

no reason to go 110 years back when they were doing this every year while the temple stood.

Ulan wrote: It doesn't matter if the person was historical or fictional.

Sure it does. Its why were here.

But my point is, it could be both. Historical and fictional, because that is what most every credible scholar states now.

outhouse wrote:

Ulan wrote: It doesn't matter if the person was historical or fictional.

Sure it does. Its why were here.

But my point is, it could be both. Historical and fictional, because that is what most every credible scholar states now.

My point was that it doesn't matter for the outcome, the resulting story, whether the person was historical or fictional. That most people here take an interest to the question whether the person of Jesus was historical of fictional is a given, and I count myself among these people. However, I think it's unanswerable, as I think that the answer to this point makes no discernible difference with regard to what follows, the kerygmatic Jesus Christ figure.

Ulan wrote:

outhouse wrote:

Ulan wrote: It doesn't matter if the person was historical or fictional.

I think it's unanswerable, as I think that the answer to this point makes no discernible difference with regard to what follows, the kerygmatic Jesus Christ figure.

For me the value is in understanding why these people wrote what they did when they did.


I think it is answerable with certainty that he existed. Details of such hover are very very limited.

outhouse wrote:

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Fernando Bermejo-Rubio lists 35 indications of seditious activity on the part of Jesus,

Ill touch on part of them.

Though your level of certainty on many of these items seems to exceed my own, I think your overall take on which ones seem the most likely to go back to something prior to the penning of the extant gospels lines up fairly well with mine. To wit, the following I also see as at least able to be explained in ways not involving history or prior tradition...:

4) The mocking of Jesus by the soldiers in the employ of Rome, involving a burlesque parody of kingly epiphany (which includes clothing him in a purple cloak, putting on him a crown of thorns, and kneeling down in raillery homage to him: Mk

Literary creation, with the possibility of a small historical core

10) The ‘triumphal entry’ into Jerusalem was a prearranged action and involved a high messianic temperament and clear political claims in words and deeds, both from Jesus (who accepted without demur the kind of welcome reserved for a claimant to the throne) and his followers.

Crossan goes into this a little. I'm skeptical if its actually Jesus mocking Pilate, and a historical event.

I see it as rhetorical prose giving Jesus a grand entry like Pilate that plagiarized OT text.

...whereas the following seem to me (so far) to be less easy to explain without recourse to the evangelists having received something traditional, whether historical or not:

2) Two λῃσταί were crucified along with Jesus, and on either side of him. Jesus was crucified in the middle of two insurrectionists.

This may have some credibility.

5) A heavily armed party was sent to seize Jesus secretly and at night (Mk 14.43, 48; Mt. 24.47, 52).

I buy this. Makes sense to stop riots by sending the goon squad out why the half a million ish attendants were sleeping it off. Best way to avoid a riot, in the tense atmosphere.

11) Several passages in Mark (11.1–6, 11, 19; 14.12–16) describe preparations and Jesus’ activities in Jerusalem which presuppose secrecy and caution, clandestine connection with supporters within the city, and even the use of some kind of password.

No problem there.

Ben.

Let me add that being crucified between two malefactors (as Luke has it) may well fulfill Isaianic prophecy ("numbered with transgressors") and thus have been created on that basis, but why the specific and more charged word λῃσταί (as Matthew and Mark have it)? That makes me wonder what Mark would have had in mind here if he is the inventor of this bit.

1 Thessalonians 5:2 (Matthew 24:44)

Ben C. Smith wrote:...whereas the following seem to me (so far) to be less easy to explain without recourse to the evangelists having received something traditional, whether historical or not:
Ben.

I see your point.


I just started running down the line and threw comments in general and realized what I did and stopped. [sorry bored this morning]