Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Pursuant to the discussion on another thread, I would like to present what many scholars feel is a very strong argument for a Passion Narrative that predates Mark (and which Mark incorporated).

In the gospel of John, Jesus has a Last Supper with his disciples on the night before Passover would begin, is arrested, is tried, is crucified, and finally is buried right before Passover begins the evening of the next day. The gospel of Peter seems to agree (3.5). But, in the gospel of Mark, Jesus is said to have actually eaten the Passover (14.12-16). Therefore he could not be executed and buried right before it. This is a familiar old issue.

However, within the gospel of Mark it seems that there is a subtext, as it were, that indicates that Jesus actually was crucified before the Passover. We begin with 14.1-2, in which Jesus' rivals plot to kill him before the feast, and with 14.10-11, in which Judas seeks to betray him to them at an opportune time. There is nothing mentioned about the plan to take him before the feast being thwarted somehow. Furthermore, the description of the Last Supper, while certainly formal in some ways, bears no telltale traces of an actual Passover meal (despite what Jeremias argued decades ago): no Passover lamb, for example, is mentioned. And then there is the rush of activity to get Jesus tried, convicted, and executed in a timely fashion, including an overnight proceeding before the Jewish authorities; this rush makes perfect sense if the authorities are trying to get their dirty work done before the feast, but no sense at all if it is already the day of the feast, which kicks off the week-long celebration of Unleavened Bread. (Furthermore, Simon of Cyrene coming in from the fields is easy to interpret as him coming in from work, perhaps early to get ready for the feast; if he is coming in from work, then it can scarcely be on the day of the feast itself. But other interpretations of this detail are possible, I think.) Finally, the hearing before the Jewish authorities itself would be highly illegal on the very night of the feast, but nothing is mentioned of this illegality, despite other elements of a possible mistrial being discussed (the false witnesses, for example).

The original narrative is not hard to suss out in its broadest points. The Jewish authorities plan to capture and kill Jesus before the feast, and they succeed, though in order to get it all done in time they have to hold a midnight hearing and generally keep things moving briskly along. The Last Supper, while certainly formal and solemn in many ways, was not a Passover meal. Jesus dies and is buried during the daytime hours right before Passover begins that night.

Later, however, the Last Supper was thought to have actually been a Passover meal, so that layer of meaning was added to the narrative. This includes much if not all of the discussion in Mark 14.12-16 and possibly also a change from "the day of preparation for the Passover" to "the day of preparation for the Sabbath" in Mark 15.42 (compare John 19.14).

What are the counterarguments? Can Mark be made to make sense here on his own merits, without recourse to earlier texts or at least traditions?

Ben.

BCS --

1. I wish that our Esteemed Poster of old, Jay Raskin, would Post on this. He has some answers.

2. There is a solution to this and it is based on the idea that there are two Passovers that have been telescoped into one. The first Passover is Symbolic and reflects the Passover of 4 BCE and the Mishmarot Group Immer. The next Passover is 12 years later and involves the Priest who was saved "by a miracle" at the Slaughter in 4 BCE. There is thus no contradiction in the Sources. One "Crucifixion" occurred the on Preparation Day" (See Raskin, although his Thesis is different on the whole...), the other on Passover.

3. YMMV.

CW

Hey, what's up, Ben? Are you a JW now? THEIR Bible (New World) ALREADY reads at Mark 15:42b "and since it was the Preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath".
Just kidding, just exploiting the possible misinterpretation (that I fell into) that you were saying that we have to re-do Mark 15:42 from reading incorrectly "Now it was preparation of the Passover" (NWT) as it does in fact instead read now at John 19:14.

Sorry for misunderstanding your sentence, it can indeed stand as it is, but my misinterpretation was understandable.
(That is, every translation into English I own already states at Mark 15;42, "day of Preparation, the day before the Sabbath" (NAB) or the like.
So ironically from preferring the verse in Mark over the verse in John, you are actually opting for GJohn being correct, that the Crucifixion took place the day of the sacrifice of the lamb for the Passover to come that night. The standard confusion we have been confused about the that Preparation Day is not the day before the Passover but the day before the weekly Sabbath.
And which of the various proposed years agrees with your schema, Ben, 29, 30, 33, or something else, that Sabbath and eating the Passover came on the same day?

Ben C. Smith wrote:However, within the gospel of Mark it seems that there is a subtext, as it were, that indicates that Jesus actually was crucified before the Passover. We begin with 14.1-2, in which Jesus' rivals plot to kill him before the feast, and with 14.10-11, in which Judas seeks to betray him to them at an opportune time. There is nothing mentioned about the plan to take him before the feast being thwarted somehow. Furthermore, the description of the Last Supper, while certainly formal in some ways, bears no telltale traces of an actual Passover meal (despite what Jeremias argued decades ago): no Passover lamb, for example, is mentioned.

I'm not overly concerned by this lack of detail. In principle, that's true for the whole gospel. Just think of the temple. It's a highly abstract place. We have the vendors and money changers "in the temple". We can look into different sources in order to decide where these activities normally happen, but gMark only uses "in the temple". Jesus also meets Pharisees there. Where? "In the temple". The temple only interests in so far as it touches on OT texts. Otherwise, there are no subdivisions, there are no worshippers, no decorations, no sacrifices, no priestly activities, nothing. It's not a real place, it's an ideal place. Which means that I'm not concerned if the Passover meal is only described by mentioning its name. It's par for the course.

Ben C. Smith wrote:Furthermore, Simon of Cyrene coming in from the fields is easy to interpret as him coming in from work, perhaps early to get ready for the feast; if he is coming in from work, then it can scarcely be on the day of the feast itself. But other interpretations of this detail are possible, I think.

I didn't wade into the other thread, although I read it. The reason for this is basically that I'm happy with the idea that, where Simon Peter (the Jew from Galilee and Judea) failed, the "other" Simon (the diaspora Jew) took up his task and spread it to the Greek and the Roman. Yes, that's highly abstract and far from proven, but I'm generally fine with the idea.

Ben C. Smith wrote:Finally, the hearing before the Jewish authorities itself would be highly illegal on the very night of the feast, but nothing is mentioned of this illegality, despite other elements of a possible mistrial being discussed (the false witnesses, for example).

Yup, that's weird. gJohn "fixed" it.

Ben C. Smith wrote:The original narrative is not hard to suss out in its broadest points. The Jewish authorities plan to capture and kill Jesus before the feast, and they succeed, though in order to get it all done in time they have to hold a midnight hearing and generally keep things moving briskly along. The Last Supper, while certainly formal and solemn in many ways, was not a Passover meal. Jesus dies and is buried during the daytime hours right before Passover begins that night.

Later, however, the Last Supper was thought to have actually been a Passover meal, so that layer of meaning was added to the narrative. This includes much if not all of the discussion in Mark 14.12-16 and possibly also a change from "the day of preparation for the Passover" to "the day of preparation for the Sabbath" in Mark 15.42 (compare John 19.14).

This is certainly a possible scenario.

I'm still a bit enamored with the "Paul & Barnabas Road Show" idea, where they perform the passion in front of the gates of cities they visit, starring Paul in the role of Christ. Is that likely? No idea, but there are some hints in this direction in Paul's texts. That would also be a possible tradition.

Ben C. Smith wrote:What are the counterarguments? Can Mark be made to make sense here on his own merits, without recourse to earlier texts or at least traditions?

That depends on how narrow you define "earlier... traditions". Paul's snippets certainly are some kind of tradition. Then, if we see the Jewish War as influence, we have impressions and maybe even stories from the war. Do we need more, if we start with the idea that we will hear a story about the fate of the man Israel like in Isaiah, as stated at the beginning of Mark?

Ulan wrote:I'm not overly concerned by this lack of detail. In principle, that's true for the whole gospel. Just think of the temple. It's a highly abstract place. We have the vendors and money changers "in the temple". We can look into different sources in order to decide where these activities normally happen, but gMark only uses "in the temple". Jesus also meets Pharisees there. Where? "In the temple". The temple only interests in so far as it touches on OT texts. Otherwise, there are no subdivisions, there are no worshippers, no decorations, no sacrifices, no priestly activities, nothing. It's not a real place, it's an ideal place. Which means that I'm not concerned if the Passover meal is only described by mentioning its name. It's par for the course.

In principle that is certainly true. However, at the Last Supper both the food and the drink are mentioned explicitly, and yet nothing peculiar to Passover bleeds through.

Ben C. Smith wrote:Finally, the hearing before the Jewish authorities itself would be highly illegal on the very night of the feast, but nothing is mentioned of this illegality, despite other elements of a possible mistrial being discussed (the false witnesses, for example).

Yup, that's weird. gJohn "fixed" it.

I am not sure that John fixed anything. I suspect the first version of the story involved an execution that was not on a feast day, and that John is simply following that same narrative. I suspect that it took an explicit change in the story to make the Last Supper a Passover meal (virtually by attraction).

I'm still a bit enamored with the "Paul & Barnabas Road Show" idea, where they perform the passion in front of the gates of cities they visit, starring Paul in the role of Christ. Is that likely? No idea, but there are some hints in this direction in Paul's texts. That would also be a possible tradition.

I find one hint in the Pauline epistles in this direction; what are the others? (I am curious.) But yes, such an idea involves early tradition that is probably more than what we find in the Pauline epistles and the LXX.

That depends on how narrow you define "earlier... traditions". Paul's snippets certainly are some kind of tradition.

Certainly, and I can easily imagine the Supper being drawn from 1 Corinthians 11 and the Passover connection being drawn from 1 Corinthians 5. That would explain a Passover meal with no distinctive Passover elements. But it would still not explain the other anomalies, especially the Jewish authorities' intention to arrest Jesus before the feast and the corresponding night hearing. What would explain those things?

Ben.

Adam wrote:Hey, what's up, Ben? Are you a JW now? THEIR Bible (New World) ALREADY reads at Mark 15:42b "and since it was the Preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath".
Just kidding, just exploiting the possible misinterpretation (that I fell into) that you were saying that we have to re-do Mark 15:42 from reading incorrectly "Now it was preparation of the Passover" (NWT) as it does in fact instead read now at John 19:14.

Sorry for misunderstanding your sentence, it can indeed stand as it is, but my misinterpretation was understandable.

It is a fairly complicated sentence, granted.

Ben C. Smith wrote:I find one hint in the Pauline epistles in this direction; what are the others? (I am curious.)

I'm sorry to be disappointing, but I guess I just overstated the case. One hint it is.

Ben C. Smith wrote:Certainly, and I can easily imagine the Supper being drawn from 1 Corinthians 11 and the Passover connection being drawn from 1 Corinthians 5. That would explain a Passover meal with no distinctive Passover elements.

True. That's a rather natural explanation for these discrepancies.

Ben C. Smith wrote:But it would still not explain the other anomalies, especially the Jewish authorities' intention to arrest Jesus before the feast and the corresponding night hearing. What would explain those things?

I think here we have clear fiction. The night hearing has no natural witnesses, which means it must be a full invention of the author by its very nature. The refusal to answer theme is the one we find with Jesus ben Ananias. Regarding the specific point that the arrest was planned early, I have no idea.

Ulan wrote:

Ben C. Smith wrote:But it would still not explain the other anomalies, especially the Jewish authorities' intention to arrest Jesus before the feast and the corresponding night hearing. What would explain those things?

I think here we have clear fiction. The night hearing has no natural witnesses, which means it must be a full invention of the author by its very nature. The refusal to answer theme is the one we find with Jesus ben Ananias. Regarding the specific point that the arrest was planned early, I have no idea.

Let us go with clear fiction, then, at least for the sake of argument. I have trouble imagining an author like Mark, one as familiar with Jewish practices (despite some gaffs) as Mark is, not knowing that a hearing on Passover night is illegal. But let us assume that he did know it and just did not mention it (leaving it as an Easter egg, I guess, for savvy readers). Now we have the general theme of rushing things through the system, to the point where a hearing is held at night in order to get the prisoner to Pilate by morning, which is completely consonant with the authorities planning to arrest Jesus before the feast! Those two details go together nicely; but they also happen to point to a storyline in which the Last Supper is not a Passover meal.

In Paul, it isn't a Passover meal either, right? In the Didache not either, if I remember correctly. The "Passover" may come from the fall of Jerusalem happening over Passover. Note that the story (Barabbas) contains also elements of Yom Kippur. It's about (failed) atonement I would assume (if it's Yom Kippur, the sacrifice for the priests is missing).

I've heard explanations that the high priests were supposed to be shown in an particularly depraved light by breaking their own rules with the trial. It's a possibility.

Note that I don't find anything I now noted overly convincing. It's difficult.

Ulan wrote: The "Passover" may come from the fall of Jerusalem happening over Passover..

Is this another guess?


Do you find it hard to believe that pious jews might have a problem having a pagan deity on the require silver temple coins in gods own house? AFTER rioting and the tortures when the eagle was removed from the entry way a short time before ?