Bren, why does Matthew say John was critical of the Pharisees and Sadducees when neither Mark, nor Luke, nor Josephus mentions this? The John gospel (the least historical) does indicate they were critical of him (not vice versa, he makes no mention of John saying anything much other than “Jesus is The Lamb of God”), but that is likewise filled with deep hostility and prejudice towards the Jewish authorities, and basically all unconverted Jews.
Matthew had a very intense hate for the Jewish religious authorities, which infects everything he writes. This is his addition to the material. He may also have some sources besides Mark, but Mark is very clearly one of his sources, and again and again, we see him rewrite Mark to be more hostile to the Jews.
Mark is hardly free of prejudice, but he is not possessed by hatred. Partly because it’s earlier, and the divide has not yet broadened to the same extent. The Jewish rebellion hasn’t happened yet, and it’s less important to emphasize the differences between Christian and Jew. But also Mark just has a different personality, less antagonistic and hostile than Matthew.
I think that if Mark has been written later, in the fashion you describe, it simply wouldn’t have caught on, and therefore would not have been preserved. It survived precisely because it was the first gospel in Greek. Preserving a somewhat earlier (and less adversarial) form of Christian belief.
Robert said
OK. So, abiding by these basic rules of historico-critical text hermeneutics, please explain why you think these two elements are problematic in Mark’s text or context.
1. Mark’s Pilate asks “Do you want me to release to you the king of the Jews?”. Mark then tells us that Pilate asks this because he was aware the chief priests had only handed Jesus over out of envy.
But this makes no sense. Being or claiming to be king of the jews would make Jesus an enemy of Rome and the chief priests would be right (in Pilate’s eyes) to hand him over.
2. The introduction of Barabbas comes too early in Mark – “A man called Barabbas was in prison with the insurrectionists who had committed murder in the uprising”.
The introduction should come only when its needed a few lines later when “the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have Pilate release Barabbas instead”.
godspell said
Bren, why does Matthew say John was critical of the Pharisees and Sadducees when neither Mark, nor Luke, nor Josephus mentions this? The John gospel (the least historical) does indicate they were critical of him (not vice versa, he makes no mention of John saying anything much other than “Jesus is The Lamb of God”), but that is likewise filled with deep hostility and prejudice towards the Jewish authorities, and basically all unconverted Jews.
Perhaps because John was critical of the pharisees and sadducees. Josephus tells us there were three sects in Judaism in his day. John the Baptist doesnt appear to belong to any of them – perhaps he was critical of all three.
Josephus doesnt tell us much about john the baptist, his interest in him is only as he relates to Herod. So we cant use Josephus to tell the historicity of John criticizing pharisees.
Jesus was critical of the pharisees and sadducees, possibly Mark and Luke removed this criticism from John because like the idea of Jesus taking a lot of is teaching from John.
Matthew had a very intense hate for the Jewish religious authorities, which infects everything he writes. This is his addition to the material. He may also have some sources besides Mark, but Mark is very clearly one of his sources, and again and again, we see him rewrite Mark to be more hostile to the Jews.
I think “intense hatred” is very much an overstatement, however if the author of Matthew is who the early christians say he is then he was part of the early church which was persecuted by the jewish religious authorities. So its understandable that he would be more antagonistic towards them then Mark or Luke writing later and away further from their centre of authority.
I think that if Mark has been written later, in the fashion you describe, it simply wouldn’t have caught on, and therefore would not have been preserved. It survived precisely because it was the first gospel in Greek. Preserving a somewhat earlier (and less adversarial) form of Christian belief.
I think given the popularity of Matthew its somewhat surprising that Mark survived either way – whether written before or after. Anyone who had a copy of Matthew essentially had a copy of Mark. The only real explanation for its surviving is that right from the beginning people believed it was written by someone close to Jesus or close to the apostles.
Mark had things of his own to say, but in the opinion of some scholars was also concerned with presenting in Greek stories that had previously only been available to those who knew Aramaic and Hebrew. We have a problem here, because we don’t have those earlier sources. There was less impetus to preserve them when few Christians understood those languages, and the most important of them had mainly been translated into the most widely shared language. So we’re stuck with these four gospels, preserved because they were useful for uniting an ethnically and linguistically diverse group of believers spread out over the Roman world, knowing there must have been earlier attempts, earlier traditions. None of these stories were being told for the first time, so EVERYBODY is editing, revising, and sometimes making up new stories (without malign intent). The notion that we have the original version of the story is simply wrong. We don’t. Mark isn’t the first either. The earliest versions are lost. Probably forever.
So many questions, so little context.
But the context we do have argues overwhelmingly for Mark being the earliest intact source we have.
Robert said
You are not abiding by the fundamental rules of historico-critical text hermeneutics. Speak only about Mark’s text in his own historical context. When do you think Mark wrote his gospel? If you disagree with the overwhelming majority of historico-critical scholars, then try and support your revisionist history. Trying to imagine what might have made sense to Pilate in 30 CE has little or no relevance to Mark’s text and his historical context.
I think he wrote around 60 but dont think that matters too much. Jesus claiming to be king of the jews would make him an enemy of Rome whether it was 30 or 60 or 68CE
The overwhelming majority of historico-critical scholars are convinced that Mark wrote during the Jewish revolt (66-73/74 CE). During this time, the Jewish high priesthood had been completely co-opted by the revolutionaries. For Mark to have Pilate more or less accept the accusation of the high priests that Jesus claimed to be (and was) the true King of the Jews and to propose that he be released instead of someone involved in the revolt against Rome is very high drama in Mark’s historical context. Pilate is essentially telling the high priests that Jesus is the true King of the Jews and not those they supported in revolt against Rome. In this context, Pilate proposing to release Jesus and knowing this would anger the high priests makes sense in the narrative but it makes even more sense in Mark’s historical context. The idea is that Rome, at war against the high priests and their support revolutionary claims of kingship against Rome, actually accepts the type of Messiah that the Christians believed Jesus to be.
One problem with that interpretation is that a few lines later in Mark Pilate asks “What shall I do then with the one you call the king of the Jews?”. Here Mark’s Pilate doesn’t think he’s king of the jews, the crowd of Jews are claiming it.
The problem is that the line “for he knew it was out of envy that they handed him over” only makes sense if Pilate doesnt believe Jesus to be guilty of sedition. But claiming or being claimed by others to be King would make him guilty of it. And this would be true regardless of when in the 60’s or 70’s it was written.
The character of Barabbas as one of the revolutionaries is of fundamental importance to Mark’s story. It’s good for this to be introduced at the beginning of the story. In Mark’s historical context, one would not expect Pilate to propose that a revolutionary be released and it is not surprising that the high priests would want him released.
Barabbas himself is almost an irrelevance for Mark – he’s just one of many revolutionaries held in prison. The crowd could have called out the name of any of them and we’d get the same effect in the gospel.
Barabbas is not introduced at the beginning of the story he’s introduced half-way through. His introduction is placed just before the crowd come up to Pilate and ask him to release a prison as was the custom.
We then get “Do you want me to release to you the king of the Jews? asked Pilate knowing it was out of envy that the chief priests had handed Jesus over to him.“
And only then get “But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have Pilate release Barabbas instead“.
Why not place the introduction here when its needed? “Barabbas was in prison with the insurrectionists who had committed murder in the uprising“.
Could there a be some reason for Mark’s Barabbas introduction to have occurred a few lines earlier?
For the record, I don’t believe Jesus ever claimed to be any kind of earthly king. He might have been misunderstood as claiming this, his followers certainly wanted to see him that way, but it just doesn’t add up for me that he expected to be reigning over the Kingdom he believed was coming.
Simply his attacking the authority of the approved-by-Rome representatives of Judaism in Jerusalem would have been enough to get him killed. There’s no telling how many people have been executed on false charges, on things they were supposed to have done and said.
The question would be why Jesus put up such a poor defense–possibly because he really did intend to make himself a sacrifice, in order to bring about the Kingdom. Or maybe it was all over from the moment he was arrested, and we certainly have no reason to believe ONE WORD that is written about his interchanges with Pilate. Nobody would have known what was said, or even if they met face to face.
This has nothing to do with which gospel came first, but I like to make my differences clear. 😉
Robert said
From Mark’s perspective, Jesus is not really an enemy of Rome. He does not overtly oppose the payment of taxes. And Pilate does not consider him an enemy, even going so far as to argue with the crowd, “Why, what evil has he done?”
True but then Pilate saying “will I release the king of the Jews” makes no sense. Mark could have simply made an error in his original account here, possibly, but we should feel free to look for an explanation of from outside Mark’s gospel – ie is he editing someone? do we have another account which appears to be the more original version?
I’m not speaking in absolutes (“more or less … essentially … the type of messiah”), merely trying to evoke some of the dynamics in how Mark’s story fits within his historical context. Mark would not be able to say that Pilate literally thought of Jesus as a military king, nor would he even want to present Jesus as such. Rather, his presentation of Jesus’ type of messiahship is very different from the type that would revolt against Rome as Barabbas and the high priests of his time did. In contrast, Pilate does not see Jesus as a violent revolutionary.
Sure but we to look for consistency and coherency in Mark – otherwise we should look and see if we find them in another gospel. Mark having Pilate say ” will I release the king of jews” and later “what will I do with the one you call King of jews” is neither consistent nor coherent. Not in itself evidence that Mark isnt first but if we find a consistent and coherent account in one of the other gospels it looks bad for markan priority.
Mark’s Pilate doesn’t believe Jesus to be guilty of sedition, otherwise how could he possibly argue with the crowd, “Why, what evil has he done?” In Mark’s story, Pilate only rekeases Barabbas and has Jesus crucified to satisfy the crowd, not because he believed him guilty of sedition.
Right but lacks consistency/coherency with “will I release the king of the jews”
Barabbas is not introduced half-way through the story–he’s introduced immediately after the custom is first briefly mentioned about a prisoner being released, which is the very beginning of this story. Barabbas is introduced as a prisoner, and not just any prisoner but as a rebel arrested as part of a murderous rebellion. He could not be introduced any earlier without the story being primarily about Barabbas.
Depends what we think the story is – I think its the trial and sentencing of Jesus under pilate. A story in which Barabbas enters mid-way through and in which Barabbas is merely one of a number of insurrectionists any one of whom could be called by the crowd and Marks story/intentions would work just the same. Mark can introduce barabbas wherever he likes but there’s one place which is “correct”. If he fails to place it here and if his actual placement matches the “correct” placement of another gospel it looks bad for Mark.
As I said before, Mark is emphasizing the character of the prisoner as part of a violent, even murderous uprising. That the high priests would prefer him over Jesus, the one they handed over is indeed high drama. To explain this after the fact is much less dramatic.
There is no problem with Mark introducing Barabbas when he does and the line about the high priests turning over Jesus out of envy also makes sense in Mark’s text and context. The high priests and people of Jerusalem and Judea were zealous (ie, jealous) for their temple and willing to revolt against Rome behind violent messiahs. The revolutionaries, including their own high priest, of Mark’s time first engaged in civil war and killed other Jews before their final stand against Rome. Mark presents Jesus, whom the high priests did not accept, as a different kind of messiah, not violent; it would have been so much better if they had accepted rather than rejected Jesus. Ultimately, the high priests and the temple will eventually be destroyed by Rome in Mark’s own time, but Jesus repeating the prophets before him had taught that the temple should have been a house of prayer for all the nations, but the high priests had made it into a den of thieves/rebels.
Yes the chief priests may have been envious of Jesus and Pilate may have known that. But when he calls Jesus the king of the jews he is agreeing with their accusations.
If Pilate is agreeing with their accusations why does he think they only handed him over out of jealousy? and why would that make Pilate willing to release him?
Now that we’re back with Barabbas, may I remind you both that we don’t know where that story came from. Roger David Aus very cunningly posits that Mark was copying from an earlier Aramaic text, an account of The Passion, that was popular with Jewish converts.
As was not uncommon in that tradition, this Jewish convert whose work is now lost transposed and rewrote an earlier story that had nothing to do with Jesus, in order to make a point (as Bart keeps telling us, we shouldn’t expect literal objective history from people writing religious texts–hard enough to find it in actual ancient histories). As the story spread, its provenance became confused, and people just assumed Barabbas was real. Imagine how exhausting it is to keep deciding which story is true and which is symbolic of something–oh wait, none of us here have to imagine that.
Mark probably rewrote his source to some extent, and then was rewritten in turn by Matthew and Luke. John may have had a different source, I’ll leave that to others. The Barabbas story was probably very popular among early Christians, but each writer will have a slightly different take on what it means. And it’s the meaning that matters to them–the significance. The role of Pilate will keep changing, as antipathy to the Jewish authorities (and fear of the Roman authorities) keeps growing.
But what we all need to keep in mind is that the details of Jesus’ actual arrest and crucifixion (I really don’t like calling it a trial) were known to very few. The disciples ran. The women may have stayed, but would not have been present for anything but the crucifixion itself, if that.
This is the most significant moment in time for Christian belief, what the entire story of Jesus has been leading up to, as they see it–and they don’t know anything about it. They have to fill that vacuum. If they tell potential converts “Well, we know he was crucified and then appeared to some of his followers, but we don’t have the details because we have no witnesses” imagine eyes glazing over. People want a good story!
Pilate is treated as a somewhat sympathetic villain–someone who doesn’t really have a dog in this fight, doesn’t understand what’s happening (which is almost certainly true). Matthew gives him a wife who had a bad dream, warns him, and he limply tries to follow up, but he has no faith, no true convictions (some later stories make him and/or his wife converts to Christianity, but that never really caught on). This doesn’t seem to match what we know about Pilate from other sources, but Pilate is a distant memory by the time the gospels are written. Roman persecution of Christians is on the rise, there’s a rebellion being put down, and it’s important to emphasize the Jews as the villains, since Christianity has given up trying to persuade them, and they are not a threat to the new cult outside the few areas they are in the majority.
Barabbas is a metaphor for how the guilty go free and the innocent are punished (in this case, a willing sacrifice on behalf of all innocents). How Jews saw the Messiah as a violent conqueror. How secular authorities don’t understand what really matters, because they have no faith, just arid philosophy (“What is truth?”) It caught on for a variety of reasons, but on the whole, I’m disinclined to believe any of it happened in reality–the true details of how it was decided Jesus would die for nothing more than preaching at Passover and overturning a few tables are lost to history. But there’s nothing terribly improbable about that. Pilate killed so many people in this fashion that it is likely he had no memory of Jesus at all, as Anatole France imagined. Maybe he spoke to Jesus, maybe he just gave the order and walked away.
So we’re just parsing how different writers told the story differently for devotional purposes. NONE of the versions we have are original. And there doesn’t seem to have been any serious uprising or riot in Jerusalem around that time.
Jesus died in our place, as they came to see it. So who lived in his place? Jesus Barabbas. A nice literary flourish. Except as people came to believe the story was literally true, they found it disturbing that this man would have the same name as their Lord and Savior, so they cut that part out.
Maybe Pilate did release somebody that day. It’s possible. Justice is not only blind, but extremely arbitrary–all the more back then. But most of the Passion Story that we have is based on religious needs, not literal fact.
Robert said
No need to remind me of this. I began my own graduate work on Mark with a consideration of the pre-Markan passion narrative. Whether Mark found an earlier version of the Barabbas story in such a passion narrative (eg, Joel Marcus) or himself created it and inserted it into a pre-existing passion narrative (eg, Adela Yarbro Collins), we still must evaluate Mark’s work as a finished product and a unified whole ultimately brought to its current form by him. While it is tempting to try and recreate Mark’s sources and identify his own redactional interventions, the various and conflicting results of such work by many redaction critics caution us against any exaggerated optimism that this can be achieved with much precision or accuracy.
Maybe ‘remind’ is the wrong word–it’s never easy to be sure we’re all on the same page where internet discussion of complex topics is concerned, so think of it as a sort of homing signal, to make sure we’re having the same conversation. You know a great deal more than me about this particular topic. But that could be said of others who disagree with both of us. The same knowledge does not lead invariably to the same conclusions–as you already know, don’t bristle, I’m just saying. 😉
I’m all for analyzing Mark’s gospel as a complete work in its own right–and an exceptional one. But even modern works of pure fiction can’t be fully understood without referencing the author’s influences–even an autobiographical work will be influenced by earlier works by other authors.
With modern authors, who have been interviewed extensively, who have written about their influences, whose influences are all in print, they can still be tricky to decipher. The level of difficulty is exponentially magnified when those influences are lost to us forever, and we have no idea who the author was (except for the evidence we find in what he or she wrote). Textual analysis is challenging under the best of circumstances, which these are not.
Nonetheless, the underlying point is that in all probability, Mark didn’t know if there was any Barabbas or not. Matthew didn’t know. Luke didn’t know. John didn’t know. They may not even have cared, if somebody had told them “I was there and I don’t remember any Barabbas.” Because the primary purpose was to illumine the underlying meaning of these events. Not to document history. They did that more or less incidentally. They shaped the past to their own purposes, their own themes.
Let’s not pretend professional historians don’t do this all the damn time, even now. But at least there’s a basic set of rules they all have to follow. The gospel authors were operating under very different rules, so the question is, how do we know the difference between an event or person they describe that is based on the actual events and people in Jesus’ life–and one that they interpolated into his life, because they felt it would make the events of his life more meaningful in a religious sense.
Robert said
Mark’s text may not make sense to you, but it makes plenty of sense to others. Most Markan scholars recognize that he has a very fine sense of irony, as any Greek author of his time and heritage would. Pilate can easily goad the high priests by referring to Jesus as the King of the Jews, recognizing that they handed him over out of jealousy, without actually considering Jesus to be a king as would need to be recognized by the Roman Senate, if intended literally. You can choose to have a more shallow reading of Mark, but I and other Markan scholars strongly advise against it.
John’s gospel has Pilate goading the chief priests by writing “king of the jews” on the cross. But saying Pilate did this knowing the chief priests handed him over out of jeaslousy wouldnt make sense here. he’s antagonising the priests because a crucified man being the king is so ridiculous. Either Pilate knows Jesus is not the king, in which case there’s nothing to be jealous of or he knows he is the king in which case the chief priests cant be said to have handed him over out of mere jealousy.
Whats more, if Luke is editing Mark then we would have to think it probable that Luke agreed the line made no sense – having it removed it from his version.
Plus, you are once again breaking the rules of good historico-critical text hermeneutics, thinking you must appeal to other texts to make sense of Mark’s text should say, when you cannot understand what it actually does say. There is no “correct” place where Mark should introduce the fact that Barabbas was arrested as a rebel along with other murderous rebels. Some of us find Mark’s text to do so in a very fine, dramatic fashion, but you want to think that it is only Matthew who introduces Barabbas in the correct place and manner. Nonsense. Mark and Matthew are telling different stories. If anything is incorrect, it is the idea that one can only understand Mark’s text only with reference to Matthew’s.
If Mark had given the barabbas introduction during the last supper or during the burial of Jesus that would clearly be “incorrect”. The “correct” place is where its needed – ie when Barabbas enters the story.
Luke and John both agree on where that “correct” place is and whats more if Luke is editing Mark, Luke must agree that Mark’s placement was “incorrect”, having moved it.
Robert said
Since you think Mark was dependent upon both Matthew and Luke, your view of the dating of Mark’s gospel has implications on their dating as well. Apparently you also believe that Paul was dependent upon Matthew’s gospel when writing 1 Thessalonians, which a few scholars (eg, Gerd Lüdemann) date as early as 41 CE, ‘though the great majority date in the 50s. You also think John was written by an eyewitness so he also cannot be too late in your opinion. Do you also think the letter of James and all of the Pauline and Petrine letters are authentic? Are there any findings of critical scholarship that you accept?
I don’t think Mark 16:9-20 is original neither do I think the Johannine Comma is original. Don’t think 2nd Peter was written by Peter but was written shortly after his death.
I think Matthew was 40’s and other unknown gospels were written subsequently but which never become popular. Luke wrote in mid 50’s and his gospel did become popular which created some difficulties for christians (two popular but contradictory versions of the gospel). Mark was then written to resolve these difficulties by removing the “myths and endless genealogies” that christians were arguing about. Acts written before the death of Paul.
John was written last of the gospels but 1st John was written before his gospel. Both were written before the persecutions of Nero began, Revelation was written during the persecutions. (2nd and 3rd John probably authentic too).
I think its possible all the letters of Paul are genuine – differences being explained by time and circumstance. 1st Peter written by an interpreter of Peter’s.
James and Jude written before 70. Possibly authentic but hard to say.
All just best guess and all could be wrong.
When Bren responded to something I said about the woman taken in adultery by saying the Jewish leaders tried to stone Jesus–which does not happen in any version of that story–and I called him on it–he didn’t admit he’d made a mistake. Yes, there are stories in the gospels about people taking up stones to throw at Jesus when he says something they don’t like, but not in that story.
I don’t think it’s malicious. He’s in the grip of a compulsion. What motivates that compulsion is hard to say.
And we’re enabling him. Which is doing him no good at all.
He started this thread. Let him finish it.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
2 Guest(s)