Loading...Once it came to be realized that Mark’s Gospel – the earliest of our surviving accounts of Jesus – was driven not purely by historical interests in order to record biographical information with historical accuracy, but was (like the other Gospels) written in order to convey theological ideas in literary guise, the movement to use Mark to write a “Life of Jesus” more or less collapsed on itself, for a time and among most New Testament scholars. What arose from the ashes of this “Quest of the Historical Jesus” could not have been foreseen by its devotees – as often happens in times of disciplinary progress and change.
The big breakthrough came with the work of Karl Ludwig Schmidt (whose most important book was never translated into English, to my knowledge). Schmidt realized that the theologically loaded parts of Mark’s Gospel were not found in the core stories found throughout its account, but in the “framework” for these stories, that is, in the narrative transitions that the author himself provided for moving from one story to the next. (That’s where the “messianic secret” identified by Wrede is found – not in the stories themselves but in the aftermath). This raised the possibility that the authors of the Gospels – who were known by this time not to have been the disciples of Jesus himself – were incorporating stories into their Gospels that they inherited, and that they themselves were merely providing the transitions from one story to the next and making the overall structure of the Gospels so that the stories would cohere into a unified whole.
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a Member. Click here for membership options. If you don’t belong yet, YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU”RE MISSING!!!
Speaking of oral traditions, I’ve been listening to a recent debate between Zeba Crook and Richard Carrier on the historicity of Jesus (link posted on McGrath’s exploring our matrix blog). At 1 hour 16 minutes, Carrier mentions that you agree with him that Phil 2.5-11 refers to Jesus as pre-existent. I didn’t realize that you learned that info from Richard. 😉 😉
Ha! How funny. I agree with *him*!?! That’s good. (Actually, I first started thinking that in roughly 1971 or 1972; he was born in 1969. I first started studying the passage seriously in 1973; I wrote an extended essay on it arguing for this in graduate school in 1979. So, well, you do the math…)
Hmmm… I’ve watched that debate. To be fair to Carrier, I don’t think he was implying that Ehrman only *now* agrees with him on the issue of Phil 2:5-11. He just mentioned Ehrman in passing as an external authority – that Ehrman had discussed the issue in his latest book. If anything, Carrier was simply letting the audience know that his view on Phil 2:5-11 wasn’t something that was far-fetched (Crook had earlier challenged Carrier’s claim that Phil 2:5-11 refered to a pre-existent Jesus).
Ah, that makes better sense.
I’ve had several Christian friends who insist that cultures with an oral tradition were faithful in recalling details perfectly. What do you think about that?
Anthropologists who have actually studied oral cultures have shown that that is absolutely and precisely wrong! The only people who say this are the ones who have not become familiar with what scholars have been saying about it for over 50 years. (There’s not a dispute about this among experts)
I’ve also seen scholars who write about literacy in 1st century Palestine, rabbis who had trained followers who wrote down their school of thought and village scribes. The implication is that Jesus’ followers would have been similar and could accurately record his sayings and deeds. However none of what is discussed actually seems relevant to Galilean fishermen. Do you think that Jesus can be compared to a rabbi with trained followers writing down his words and deeds?
No, we have no evidence of that happening in the first century. The literacy rates in Palestine at the time were around 3%; virtually no one in rural areas could read and write….
If there’s anyone who could give a hop-skip-and-a-jump overview of New Testament scholarship in the tweitieth century and make it thoroughly understandable, it’s Ehrman. Thanks. You have a real talent for this.
It’s my day job. 🙂
Good info, well presented, Dr. E.
If I could be so bold as to recommend a book on this topic to other readers here, they might find “The Bible: Now I Get It! : A Form-Criticism Handbook” by Gerhard Lohfink useful.
A very enjoyable, very accessible introduction to the topic.
I’m enjoying this series of posts. The history of ‘the Quest’ is almost as fascinating as ‘the Quest’ itself!
Bart,
I am enjoying this “hop skip and jump” historical lesson over the last few blog posts.. Are these topics covered in your New Testament college text books as well? I would like to learn more about this without necessarily having to jump into the “deep end” of the knowledge stream.
No, I don’t coer these anywhere really. You might try the book by Stephen Neill and N. T. Wright on the Interpretatoin of the NT as a way to start.
Is it probable that the gospels weren’t written until decades after Jesus’ crucifixion because the stories simply hadn’t fully developed? I wonder what a gospel written in the 30s CE would have looked like. Perhaps like what we glean of Jesus’ life from Paul’s letters?
I speculate on what an early Gospel may have looked like in my recent book How Jesus Became God. My guess is that it would have looked very different indeed from the way our current Gospels look.
This is extremely interesting, especially the part about “narrative transitions.” If you have not already read it, Bruno Bettelheim’s “The Uses of Enchantment: The Meaning and Importance of Fairy Tales” presents one psychoanalytic view about the “form” of fairy tales. Although Bettelheim was a controversial figure, especially with regard to the etiology of autism, all psychological studies about the transition of fairy tales start with his book.
Ronald, I’m glad you mentioned Bettelheim’s work. I once read at least part of that book… long ago now, but can’t remember much. But I do remember being impressed and I realize it’s definitely worth looking at again. Yes, our understanding about autism is far advanced (and not as psychoanalytically oriented) since that book, but I imagine the insights more broadly are timeless. It may be worth mentioning that Christian Process thinkers, in their balanced interest in science and in strong philosophical foundations, often speak of the need for “Re-enchantment”.
P.S. My guess is that you as well as many of your readers, have already read a lot written by Joseph Campbell, but, if not, “The Power of Myth” by Joseph Campbell and Bill Moyers and “The Hero with a Thousand Faces” by Joseph Campbell are good places to start.
Is there an opinion from the language on whether the author of Mark was local to where Jesus preached? I keep thinking that the time from Jesus death to the writing of Mark is about the same as John F Kennedy’s death to now. Jesus’ life would have been within the personal memory of the author, wouldn’t it?
Yes, actually it’s just hte opposite. Mark was written in Greek, whereas in Jesus’ locale the language was Aramaic. Mark lived in a different part of the world. Imagine someone for the *first time* writing an account of JFK’s words and deeds today (with no written sources to base the account on!)…
Do you think the miracle stories are purely theological inventions, or did Jesus have a miracle ministry akin to modern faith healers and exorcists? Or a combination of both: like Jesus praying for the sick, or a large crowd sharing food together, which later was amplified for theological purposes?
I go back and forth; my sense is that he was known in his lifetime as someone with remarkable abilities like this. Whether he actually *did* anything to deserve it is another quesiton….
Hmm. But haven’t you said elsewhere that if he really was thought of as a miracle worker during his lifetime, there would have been mentions of him in other written sources from the era? The reason the lack of mentions didn’t support the theory that he never existed was that he *wasn’t* really doing anything spectacular.
I think what I said was that if he really was healing the sick and raising the dead and feeding 5000 with a few loaves, he would have had a much larger following and would have been more widely noticed.
And how do all these thoughts relate to the Gospel interpretations that sought to explain all the “miraculous phenomena” as misunderstood normal happenings? (I’m thinking in particular of their explanation for the feeding of the multitudes being that when Jesus broke out the loaves and fishes, that was a signal to everyone that it was time to eat the lunches they’d brought with them.)
That would be a different kind of explanaiton of where the stories came from.
I think that there is possible connections between some of the miracle stories and actual historical events. For example, the miracle story of the feeding of the five thousand most likely had its origin not in Jesus but in Queen Helen and her feeding of the many Jews who were caught up in the famine in Jerusalem. It is also possible that the stories of Paul raising money for the poor in Jerusalem also are tied to this contribution of money by Helen and her sons to buy grain and figs from Egypt for this same historical event. And even further you can add the story of Phillip and the Eunuch to this same historical kernel.
As to “stories of Paul raising money…”, he speaks of this directly himself, in the “genuine” epistles, so that is apparently not mere conflated story. And it makes sense in his situation and his motivations… a newly released finely illustrated documentary film (on DVD) on this is “A Polite Bribe” by Robert Orlando… can be bought online.
This is great stuff! Very interesting.
I’m sure you’ll never run out of things to write about in the blog. I, on the other hand, may run out of brain capacity soon…
I wonder when I’ll simply start repeating myself….
Hi Bart,
In his book, “Jesus for the Non-Religious”, John Shelby Spong states an interesting approach to what he believes happened during the “oral tradition”. He says that during the “oral tradition” the stories of Jesus were told “exclusively” inside the Jewish synagogue. He goes on to explain why he believes this to be true. In his explanation he explains that in many cases the very words written in the 3 synoptic gospels are those taken directly out of the Jewish scriptures, right from the very beginning words of Mark regarding the “good news”. Finally he references Acts 13:13 – 16, which talks about how Paul preached about Jesus in the synagogue. I know he’s not a historian, but he presents an interesting argument for his case.
I have noticed in several of your books that when you talk about the “oral tradition” you typically explain that during this time period, people passed on the stories about Jesus via word of mouth from husband to wife, neighbor to neighbor to neighbor, etc. but it seems to me you never mention anything one way or the other about whether this also occurred in the Jewish synagogue.
To me, a layman in all of this, it seems that it would have taken place both inside and outside the Jewish synagogue.
I was wondering, do todays historical scholars believe that during the oral tradition, the stories of Jesus were not discussed in the Jewish synagogues? If so, I was wondering if you could briefly explain why?
Thank you
John
Well, there’s no way the traditions about Jesus were told *only* in synagogues. Absolutely no way. They certainly were sometimes. But I don’t think we have any way of knowing which stories were told there, where, or when…..
Is there a book on the history of NT studies, like there are on the history of the history of philosophy?
A classic is Werner Georg Kummel, The new Testament: The History of the Investigation of Its Problems. A recent fuller account is the three volume History of NT REsearch by William Baird.
Dr Ehrman, you wrote ,
…and they came up with stories about Jesus that could justify their own approach to the Sabbath based on clever sayings of their master himself…
jesus uses the story from 1 Samuel 21 to justify his actions on the sabbath. notice in the next chapter god allowed the whole village to be slaughtered? the christians who were cooking up arguments to justify thier own approach weren’t interesting in the next chapter, right?
Well, Christians in support of the book of Revelation very much think that God is willing to slaughter not just a village but the entire world of those who do not line up with him!
James Crossley says social memory studies are ‘form criticism in drag’.
That’s a good one. Where does he say that?
Facebook, apparently he was repeating a comment from someone else.
I can understand how the “form critics” interpreted the oral traditions about Jesus’s arguing with other Jews about rules and regulations. Claiming they were really about situations facing the early Christians meant to hear the stories.
But how did they fit the “miraculous healing” traditions into that pattern?
Different form critics have different understandings how different forms of stories functoined. But one way such stories almost certainly would have functoined was in evangelism — convincing non-believers of the superiority of Jesus.
could the pharisee’s have used the next chapter to refute jesus and tell him that disobedience caused god to slaughter the whole village?
My view is that readers can use texts just about any way that suits their purposes.
Bart Ehrman May 26, 2014
My view is that readers can use texts just about any way that suits their purposes.
+-+-+
“Can” and do!
My take from this blog post is that “form criticism” states that the “form” was created to address a situation the early Christians were facing and therefore was probably not historical. As an alternative view, perhaps the “form” was created as an oral memory aid. Perhaps the “form” was actually a “formula” to make it easier to remember stories. Of course, stories could have been altered to fit the form, as well as new stories added in the same form for extra punch. It would be interesting to see what helps “memory” in the transmission and presentation of oral traditions.
Speaking of form criticism, one of the problems that I have with your book “Did Jesus Exist” is that you claim Hebrew scriptures like Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53 would not have inspired the crucifixion narrative because these passages, traditionally, were not interpreted to refer to the Messiah. I would disagree with this by pointing out that the original Christian writers were taking Hebrew scriptures out of context and applying them to Jesus, such as Hosea 11:1 (“Out of Egypt I have called my son”). Nice try though.
Yes, but that was because the view found in those texts *coincided* with what Jews would want to say about a messiah figure. That’s just the opposite of the crucifixion. That’s my point.
You say that, but when we examine the crucifixion narrative in Mark it seems to be created right out of Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22. Isaiah 53:3-7 is especially unmistakable: “He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.” Now Isaiah wasn’t making a prophesy aboout Jesus, but it seems that Mark was doing a haggadic midrash on Isaiah. The two are just so similar. So, Mark depicts Jesus as one who is despised and rejected, a man of sorrow acquainted with grief. He then describes Jesus as wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities. The Servant in Isaiah, like Jesus in Mark, is silent before his accusers. In Isaiah it says of the servant with his stripes we are healed, which Mark turned into the story of the scourging of Jesus. This is, in part, is where atonement theology comes from. The servant is numbered among the transgressors in Isaiah, so Jesus is crucified between two thieves. The Isaiah servant would make his grave with the rich, So Jesus is buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, a person of means.
Then, for Psalm 22, as Dr. Robert Price says
The substructure for the crucifixion in chapter 15 is, as all recognize, Psalm 22, from which derive all the major details, including the implicit piercing of hands and feet (Mark 24//Psalm 22:16b), the dividing of his garments and casting lots for them (Mark 15:24//Psalm 22:18), the “wagging heads” of the mockers (Mark 15:20//Psalm 22:7), and of course the cry of dereliction, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34//Psalm 22:1). Matthew adds another quote, “He trusts in God. Let God deliver him now if he desires him” (Matthew 7:43//Psalm 22:8), as well as a strong allusion (“for he said, ‘I am the son of God’” 27:43b) to Wisdom of Solomon 2:12-20, which underlies the whole story anyway (Miller), “Let us lie in wait for the righteous man because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions; he reproaches us for sins against the law and accuses us of sins against our training. He professes to have knowledge of God, and calls himself a child of the Lord. He became to us a reproof of our thoughts; the very sight of him is a burden to us because his manner of life is unlike that of others, and his ways are strange. We are considered by him as something base, and he avoids our ways as unclean; he calls the last end of the righteous happy, and boasts that God is his father. Let us see if his words are true, and let us test what will happen at the end of his life: for if the righteous man is God’s son he will help him and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries. Let us test him with insult and torture that we may find out how gentle he is and make trial of his forbearance. Let us condemn him to a shameful death, for, according to what he says, he will be protected.”
As for other details, Crossan points out that the darkness at noon comes from Amos 8:9, while the vinegar and gall come from Psalm 69:21. It is remarkable that Mark does anything but call attention to the scriptural basis for the crucifixion account. There is nothing said of scripture being fulfilled here. It is all simply presented as the events of Jesus’ execution. It is we who must ferret out the real sources of the story. This is quite different, e.g., in John, where explicit scripture citations are given, e.g., for Jesus’ legs not being broken to hasten his death (John 19:36), either Exodus 12:10, Numbers 9:12, or Psalm 34:19-20 (Crossan). Whence did Mark derive the tearing asunder of the Temple veil, from top to bottom (Mark 15:38)? Perhaps from the death of Hector in the Iliad (MacDonald). Hector dies forsaken by Zeus. The women of Troy watched from afar off (as the Galilean women do in Mark 15:40), and the whole of Troy mourned as if their city had already been destroyed “from top to bottom,” just as the ripping of the veil seems to be a portent of Jerusalem’s eventual doom.
I suspect that some of the Jews of that time probably became convinced that a traditional military messiah who would emerge to overthrow the Romans was never going to come, so they began to search their scriptures for a different way to see how the messiah might come. And this is what Paul did. In 1 Corinthians 15:3 Paul said Christ died for our sins “according to scripture.” What scripture would Paul have had in mind if not Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22? Paul clearly thought Christ’s atoning death was part of what it meant for Christ to be the messiah.
Hi Bart, I was curious to know your view on form criticism. Do you think the stories of Jesus were made up for specific reasons that suited the early church? If you do, do you think this was for the majority of stories?
Ah, this is what my most recent book Jesus Before the Gospels is about!
Hi Bart!
If one wants to read more about the traces of oral tradition in our written gospels (especially in synoptics) what would you recommend? Kelber and Ong “The Oral and the Written Gospel”? Is that a good place to start? Also, if you have anything else to add please do.
One more thing. I was thinking of buying a book by Sanders and Davies “Studying the Synoptic Gospels”. What are your thoughts on that book? Thank’s!
I have a book devoted to it, called Jesus Before the Gospels. I deal with the older scholarship there (including Kelber, Ong, etc.). So it might be the place to start. Sanders and Davies is a very good book, though it’s clear that the two authors have very different interests and orientations. It depends what you’re looking for, though — i.e., what *kind* of analysis/discussoin of the Synoptics (what do you want to learn about?).
I’ve read your book Jesus before the Gospels and it vas very interesting. I’ve even wrote the summary of your book in an effort to persuade more people (from my country) to read your book. But it seems to me your main interest was to use modern psychological and antropological studies to determine what can we know about certain events from Jesus’ life. Also, you talked about cultural memory and different portraits of Jesus in gospels. That’s all fine and interesting but I would like to learn more about the exact traces of orality in the Gospels. Where do we see this orality for example in the Gospel of Mark etc. Those are the questions that I would like to pursue even more.
Regarding the Davies&Sanders book, since I’m a historian I’m looking for historical anylsis of the synoptics. In other words, I would like to know more about different stories and events from Jesus’ life that we find in the synoptics. Was it historical or not, and how can we know it (if we can know it at all). That would be in the line of what you’ve done with couple of examples in Jesus before Gospels (e.g. cleansing of the temple). I would just like to see more examples from Jesus’ life historically analyzed in that way! I even remember reading your book and thinking “aaa Bart, why didn’t you take more examples from Jesus’ life?” haha.
Maybe the best possible solution for me would be to buy separate books on Mark (e.g. Joel Marcus), Matthew (Dale Allison Jr.), and Luke (J. Fitzmayer)? But also, it’s much more expensive solution!
Yes, there is a large literature on the oral materials prior to mark’s Gospel. The reality is that unless he was makig up all the stories himself, he had to hear them from somewhere. But since many of the stories are found in sources that do not appear to have been familiar with Mark or dependent on him, then he could not have made them up (since they are independently attested.)
If you are interested mainly in what happened in the life of Jesus, then Sanders and Davies is not the best place to turn. You should read, instead, books about the historical Jesus. A classic is Sanders own, Jesus and Judaism; the fullest study is the multi-volume work by John Meier, a Marginal Jew. If you want a versoin written for a broader audience, you might try the books on Jesus by Dale Allison, Paula Fredriksen, or my book Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennum.
Thank you for helping me. Well, I’ve read your book on historical Jesus, also Allison Jr. “Constructing Jesus” and Helen Bond’s “Historical Jesus”, but I’m looking for something that is not for the broad audience. I’ll go to Sanders then. Thank’s!
Yup, start with Sanders. Then maybe Meier.
Were resurrection stories a form? That is, did “The Resurrection” have forerunners in other literature of the period (or of the periods upon which forms relied)?
No, I’m afraid before the Christians came along there were no stories of humans who were brought back to life on earth in order to live forever. Resurrection stories are not a “form” because they are not different stories but different versions with additional details of the same story.