(13 votes, average: 4.69 out of 5)
Loading...In my previous post I showed how scholars in the 19th century came to think that our shortest and evidently-least-embelished Gospel Mark gave the accurate account of Jesus ‘ life, so that any reconstruction of what Jesus really said and did simply could simply assume that Mark provides the essential information.
But is that right? It eventually came to be seen as wrong. Here’s how I discuss the matter in my book Jesus Before the Gospels (HarperOne, 2016).
******************************
The problem with Mark is that it is so terse that there are huge gaps in the narrative. It is hard to determine what is driving Jesus’ action and what his ultimate objective is. To solve that problem 19th-century scholars writing about Jesus filled in the gaps either with inventive narratives they spun out of their own imagination or with psychological analyses about what must have been motivating Jesus at one point of his life or another.[1]
All of these efforts were rooted in the sense that Mark is the earliest and most historical account without any serious theological overlay (or what I have been calling “distorted memories”). That view was demolished in the early 20th century by German scholar William Wrede, in a book he called The Messianic Secret.[2] Wrede engaged in a deep and perceptive analysis of Mark’s Gospel, and showed that one of the overarching organizing principles in the Gospel was not at all historical. It instead represented a theological understanding of Jesus. That was the view that Jesus tried to keep his messianic identity a secret.
Throughout Mark, when someone recognizes that Jesus is the messiah, he
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
Could Jesus hesitate to claim he was the Messiah because he thought that would upset Herod and the Romans? If he could be accepted as a prophet without being seen as an enemy of Herod and Rome, why would he want to cross the authorities by announcing that he was the Messiah?
It’s often said that he didn’t announce he was the messiah because he wasn’t interested in getting arrested nad executed (too soon? ever?); but of course there’s no way to know what was going on in his head.
“Here was Mark’s overarching question: Why was Jesus revered as the messiah in the community of his own day if – as they knew — he was not widely acknowledged as the messiah during his lifetime?”
Jesus probably did keep his belief that he’s the messiah secret, at least from most people.
Just like an opposition leader operating in occupied territory is not going to be open about their identity, the apocolyptic Jews preaching the end of Roman-occupied Israel were likely discreet about it.
Reminds me of the scene from Good Morning Vietnam, “Well, we ask people, Are you the enemy? And whoever says yes, we shoot them.” Seems like a no brainer to be discreet in who to tell regarding the coming fall of Roman authority.
Maybe the apostle who betrayed Jesus came forward with information of talk likely viewed as seditious by the authorities.
And psychologically, if you want to impress people that you are the messiah, it may be better to humbly earn a reputation as a charismatic leader and healer, rather than standing on the street corner, announcing your importance by shouting and wearing a sign.
Do you think fundamental Christan churches worship the “Bible? “God said it, I believe it, that settles it.” It is my view the Bible is the least studied book in history. Every Sunday the same stories, versus, and sermons are preached. There is no attempt to study the Bible in depth.
Many believe there are no myths in the Bible. Some seminaries require their teaching staff to sign statements the Bible is inerrant.
It is my view the far extreme right politics are destroying churches. Members are running from fundamentalist religious zealots. There is little concept of “live and let live.”
I was a student in the 1960’s. The US is the exact opposite of the 1960’s at this time. What is the difference between Sharia Law and National Christianity? At times, it appears some want the return of slavery. You know slavery is in the Bible. It’s a bad time to be alive if one has a brain.
What a coincidence! I am currently reading Albert Schweizer’s EPIC book and I was reading about William Wrede and his explanation about the messianic secret: that it was an invention of Mark in order to replace the original perception of Christians, who believed that Jesus didn’t regard himself as the Messiah, with a later view that held just the opposite. The first Christians didn’t believe Jesus thought he was the Messiah, because Jesus himself tried to keep it a secret, which was going to be revealed only after his death! Those German scholars came up with brilliant stuff!
Hello, Bart. While it makes perfect sense that the Gospel writers were passing along oral traditions, why are form critics (and other historians?) so sure that those same writers were not making up a few stories on their own? I’m thinking of Matthews post-resurrection “walking dead,” Luke’s “forgive them father,” quote or the entire opening chapter of the Gospel of John? After all, the Gospel writers are, first and foremost, storytellers, and the first rule of good storytelling is to keep your tale interesting. Thanks.
I’d say different scholars have different views about how much the Gospel writers themselves were creatively inventing traditions. A lot of us think there’s not much evidence they did at all, but then again, there’s not a lot of evidence they didn’t either. Of course, any story/saying found independently in more than one source could not have been invented by either of them….
Well can we say if the gospels are independent? Mark Goodacres view they essentially depend on each other seems hard to ignore and at least raises doubts about the ability to determine independent attestation. Also there is the whole issue of Pauls influence on the gospels. If he is the true source of the last supper tradition, it seems quite plausible other Pauline fabrications made it into the gospels from letters that are now lost. If Steve Mason is right about Mark being veeeery Pauline that also raises the odds Mark included more than one Pauline fabrication.
Independent attestation happens only in places where they do *not* depend on each other. Paul gives almost no information about Jesus’ life, so he seems unlikely as a source. The “dependence” on Paul involves his theological views, not the content of his stories (Paul never mentions Jesus’ miracles, parables, last days and hours, or… well, much of anything else central to Mark).
“If Mark was responsible for the narrative framework of the stories, where did the stories themselves come from? The form critics maintained that they did not come from authors who were themselves followers of Jesus or who acquired their information directly from eyewitnesses. The stories instead came from oral traditions in circulation in the years prior to the Gospels.”
Isn’t this what you also say, Bart?
Therefore, what is Bauckham referring to when he says that Form Criticism is dead?
He’s referring to the specific claims of authors like Bultmann and Dibelius, not to the general idea that the Gospels are ultimately based on oral traditions. Almost no one does form-criticism the way scholars were doing it a century ago (arguig that the situations in the church shaped the ligerary forms of the Gospel stories which can then be analysized, by formal literary analysis, to reconstruct th history of the church and its conflicts) disabledupes{7fbc616be1e982565e49dc51fb53f122}disabledupes
It’s a long time since I read Schweitzer but my recollection is that when discussing his own theory, having accepted Mark as the earliest source he then concentrates on Matthew. Also, he accepts that Jesus wished to keep his Messianic claims secret and that revealing this to the Jewish authorities was the “betrayal” of Judas. I’d be interested in what you think of that latter theory as I’ve never seen anyone discuss it.
He more or less conflates Mark and Matthew as the earliest sources, and derives his theory by picking a verse from one and then the other and putting them together. As to the latter theory, I absolutely think it’s right. I’ve written about it on the blog a few times. (I remember formulating it in my own head and then only years later reading it in Schweitzer and realizing I must have originally seen it there years before formulating it myself. So much for my creativity…)
Can I edit my comment?
It’s a long time since I read Schweitzer but my recollection is that while he lampoons earlier writings as dressing Jesus up with their contemporary clothing, so to speak, when discussing his own theory, he is deadly serious.
Then, having accepted Mark as the earliest source he mostly relies on Matthew.
Also, he accepts that Jesus wished to keep his Messianic claims secret and suggests that revealing this to the Jewish authorities was the “betrayal” of Judas. Previously, seen as a prophetic figure, he’d had the support of the crowds but this collapsed once his Messianic pretensions were known. I’d be interested in what you think of that latter theory as I’ve never seen anyone discuss it.
Two questions:
1) Do scholars think Mark had any written sources in addition to his oral sources? Letters of Paul perhaps (maybe even some of the hundreds that have not survived down to us)? Sayings style or narrative style forms?
2) I’m curious to hear your thoughts on Dale Martin’s argument in “Jesus in Jerusalem: Armed and Not Dangerous.” https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0142064X14544863?icid=int.sj-abstract.similar-articles.2. Both Dale’s original and Paula Fredriksen’s response make a lot of sense, so I’m curious to hear where the scholarly community is on this topic ten years out from Dale original paper.
1. Yes, often it is thought that he did — e.g., possibly a written account of the passion. Nothing would suggest he had access to other letters of Paul, and of course in the letters of Paul that we ourselves have he hardly says *anything* about the events of Jesus’ life. 2. I haven’t looked at that for a long time, but when it came out I thought Dale’s argument was more convincing in the specifics. I do not, though, think that Jesus supported armed rebellion against the Romans (I’ve written about that on the blog a few times)
As I’ve read more about Mark, I’ve come to find it less and less useful as a historical source to reconstruct Jesus life, actions, and teachings. Which is unfortunate considering it is our earliest gospel. It seems like if anything, Mark would be what we would call “historical fiction”. He invents characters, events, motifs, and sayings that help convey to his audience what HE wanted them to know. In reality, it seems like Mark really didn’t know a whole lot about what actually happened during Jesus ministry. What seems to be apparent though is that during Mark’s lifetime, the idea that Jesus was the awaited messiah was a tough sell. Perhaps it was something that not even all of Jesus’ disciples and family were fully behind when Mark was writing. That’s certainly the impression you get from Mark himself. If we had no other Christian writings beside Mark, that’s what we would probably think. You’d be laughed out of the room for suggesting that James became leader of the movement or that Jesus’ disciples were preaching that he was the messiah. Based on Mark, we’d just think that none of them ever realized it.
Mark is still useful because he preserves Jesus quotes that are standard monotheistic judaism on how many deities there are and how one gets salvation. That he agrees with Paul over the Jesus he is quoting is striking.
“If we had no other Christian writings beside Mark, that’s what we would probably think. You’d be laughed out of the room for suggesting that James became leader of the movement or that Jesus’ disciples were preaching that he was the messiah. Based on Mark, we’d just think that none of them ever realized it.”
I couldn’t agree more. It’s as if everything Paul has to say about anyone who could and potentially did challenge his status is conveniently trashed.