CEJ said
Porphyry said
What think you?
I think that is an excellent post — the kind we need more of.
Wow, I can’t say I was expecting that reception.
Just to play this out a bit further; and again, with the caveat that this is just playing with possibilities:
The Jews are portrayed poorly in Mark. Jesus’ own disciples are portrayed poorly, even his most intimate disciples are cast poorly: James and John ask to be leaders sitting on his right and left (Mk 10:35-41), Peter, right after confessing Jesus is the Christ, is called Satan (Mk 8:33), he is rejected in his own town and his own family of course thinks he is crazy.
On the other hand: 1) The Roman authority, Pilate is portrayed as sympathetic–he wants to free Jesus but his hand is forced by the wicked Jews; similarly the Roman centurion–who just killed him–recognizes Jesus as the son of God. And there is a clear idea of the legitimacy of outsiders: it is not these disciples alone who have Jesus’s power. (Mk 9:39-41) Such themes would appeal to a gentile offshoot of Christianity with at most a tenuous connection to the core Jerusalem Church.
Aain, the demoniac at Gerasene: He is a gentile, living in the region of the Decapolis, he has a fantastic strength (Mk 5:4), he lives surrounded by death (Mk 5:3), but he is tormented and miserable (Mk 5:5). And the name of the demons that possess him, who both torments him and gives him his strength, is “Legion.” Mightn’t this be a literary description of some sort of Christian soldiers, disgusted and tormented by the death and devastation they bring in doing their duty (ruthlessly suppressing rebellions for example), who, Mark enigmatically suggests to his reader, will be redeemed by their confession of Christ? Precisely the sort of Roman soldier who will, following orders, crucify a harmless preacher, who taught love not hate, in order to appease the local population and prevent a riot, but also confess that he was surely the son of God?
Finally, as to the mystery cult context: several elements in Mark are, it seems, very deliberately obscure–the young man who runs away naked and shows up again at the tomb to announce the resurrection, the “let the reader understand” in the little apocalypse. There is also the claim that the author has access to a secret teaching of Jesus not heard by the crowds: e.g., Mk 4:34.
Porphyry said
What think you?
Jesus of Nazareth claimed to be the promised Jewish messiah but was executed by crucifixion on the orders of Pontius Pilate. Peter, the leader of his twelve closest followers, and James his brother continued to believe he was the messiah after his death, believed that he rose from the dead, that his death was a sacrifice for the sins of the world and that he was the son of god.
Paul originally persecuted and tried to destroy this new religion but later became convinced that Jesus was indeed the son of god and everything else Peter and James claimed and began to preach the same faith. Paul wrote to a church in Rome he had never been to, and had no hand in setting up, writing to both Jews and Gentiles there who had been in the faith before him.
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all believed in the literal truth of what they were writing (and also Mark had access to Matthew/Luke when writing his gospel).
Robert makes an excellent point that needs to be internalized before we attempt any sort of interpretation. The ancients didn’t think the way we think. Our modern historical consciousness simply didn’t exist back then. Not that they had no historical consciousness but that it differed substantially from ours.
For example, brenmcg, you don’t realize what a modern concept “literal truth” is!
Stephen said
For example, brenmcg, you don’t realize what a modern concept “literal truth” is!
Mark 4:34 “he did not speak to them except in parables, but he explained everything in private to his disciples.”
John 16:25 “‘I have said these things to you in proverbs. The hour is coming when I will no longer speak to you in proverbs but will tell you plainly of the Father.”
Here we have two examples of gospel writers understanding the difference between truth and literal truth.
Robert said
I’m no expert in ancient historiography, but I have the impression that part of the intent was creating, expressing, and reinforcing an evolving communal sense of identity. Recounting past events of heroes was not merely about narrating what we might consider historical facts. Narrated events were malleable in service to this goal.
Right, but given that that was the convention, I suspect at least the savvier people were conscious of this, and I suspect that the authors knew that they were conscious of this, such that often the authors had no intention of deceiving even when they wrote things that weren’t true. Thus Thucydides included speeches he knew weren’t accurate accounts (he knew this because he knew he had made them up), but he also wasn’t being deceptive because he was open about the fact. Even if he hadn’t said it outright, a reasonable reader would have inferred the speeches weren’t reliable historical records because they knew that there almost certainly wasn’t a stenographer standing there at the time, and they knew (as you note) that standard rhetorical training included composing speeches from the perspective of other people.
Stephen said
The ancients didn’t think the way we think. Our modern historical consciousness simply didn’t exist back then. Not that they had no historical consciousness but that it differed substantially from ours.For example, brenmcg, you don’t realize what a modern concept “literal truth” is!
Like brenmcg, I just don’t buy the idea that the ancients had no understanding of literal historical truth. They clearly understood what a lie was; they had laws against perjury; they accused others of being unreliable and making up stories (as one easy example, see Mt 28:13-15–he is clearly aware of the difference between a true and a false history). Aristotle explicitly discusses the truth and falsity of past propositions (the principle of excluded middle applies to them). Herodotus explicitly discusses his method for determining which of several historical accounts is accurate.
Most generally though, they are thinking humans; they understood the difference between something actually having happened and not having happened, just like even children do today (tell an 8 year old a really tall tale and odds are good he will ask if it really happened–you don’t need to study historiography to grasp the distinction and realize it matters; my daughter started asking what stories are “really real” and which are make-believe when she was about 4; we didn’t have to teach her and she really didn’t have much opportunity to imbibe modern notions of history).
I am willing to admit that their conventions about what should be taken as literally true differed from ours. Their standards about what evidence is required to establish that something was historical truth are different from those of modern history. Of course there were propagandists and liars and they may have gotten away with their lies more often due to the difficulty people would have had checking their stories. Surely too, many illiterate people were probably gullible and took things as true that either were lies or were never intended to present historical truth. There may also have been subjects where–though they knew the difference between true and false history in the abstract–it didn’t seem to them worth looking into–they have no way of discerning what was accurate and what wasn’t so they didn’t worry about it; they would have been agnostics on some historical questions.
All of this makes things very confusing for us; it is hard to tease these issues out and figure out what is going on in a particular case. But I don’t think these complexities justify the belief that the ancients didn’t have a concept of literal historical truth.
Perhaps I am wrong, but I do not think that people are suggesting that ancient writers did not know the difference between relating something that they though was essentially true and simply making something up out of whole cloth. I think the difference is the degree of fussiness about the precise completeness and accuracy of details, which we might consider important and they did not.
JAS said
Perhaps I am wrong, but I do not think that people are suggesting that ancient writers did not know the difference between relating something that they though was essentially true and simply making something up out of whole cloth. I think the difference is the degree of fussiness about the precise completeness and accuracy of details, which we might consider important and they did not.
I’m perfectly happy to allow for their having, by modern standards, a sloppy attitude to minor details and to allow that, by their own conventions, insignificant details wouldn’t have been taken as historically accurate.
But once we allow for that, we still have the question. For example, did Mark believe some disciples found the empty tomb on Sunday morning or not? That isn’t an insignificant detail. Did he believe that a young man told them Jesus would meet them or not? Did Matthew believe that Jesus rode into Jerusalem on two animals (this might seem like an insignificant detail, but it isn’t for him because he thought it fulfilled a prophecy; it was a detail but it was a very significant detail). Did John believe they broke the legs of the others crucified or not? Did he believe the soldiers cast lots for Jesus clothes or not? (Again they are details, but they matter to john). Did Matthew actually believe Herod massacred the boys of Bethlehem? Did Matthew actually believe the just came out of their graves and wandered around Jerusalem at the crucifixion or not? And for each of these, if they didn’t believe these things actually happened, did they expect their reader to believe it or not?
Porphyry said
But once we allow for that, we still have the question. For example, did Mark believe some disciples found the empty tomb on Sunday morning or not? That isn’t an insignificant detail. Did he believe that a young man told them Jesus would meet them or not? Did Matthew believe that Jesus rode into Jerusalem on two animals (this might seem like an insignificant detail, but it isn’t for him because he thought it fulfilled a prophecy; it was a detail but it was a very significant detail). Did John believe they broke the legs of the others crucified or not? Did he believe the soldiers cast lots for Jesus clothes or not? (Again they are details, but they matter to john). Did Matthew actually believe Herod massacred the boys of Bethlehem? Did Matthew actually believe the just came out of their graves and wandered around Jerusalem at the crucifixion or not? And for each of these, if they didn’t believe these things actually happened, did they expect their reader to believe it or not?
It might very reasonably not have been a significant detail to the writer. We must remember that they were not really trying to create a single comprehensive account. There was no thought, presumably, that these would ever be accumulated as one book and compared.
JAS said
It might very reasonably not have been a significant detail to the writer.
Is there any historical claim in each gospel you think we can reasonably presume was significant to the respective author?
At least two of the gospels explicitly claim to be historically accurate (Lk and Jn), and all four gospels make historical claims to establish or substantiate theological claims. They tell various miracle story to prove that Jesus was sent by God. Or they describe what Jesus historically did and claim that that even fulfills a prophecy (thus proving that Jesus was the Messiah). Or they describe commands that Jesus gave his followers.
If we don’t think the historicity of any such events was significant to the author, then we are basically saying the gospels aren’t claiming to be history and didn’t intend to be read as history. If that was a plausible reading we wouldn’t have any historical problems, because we have no historical claims being made.
Porphyry said
Is there any historical claim in each gospel you think we can reasonably presume was significant to the respective author?
The only thing we can say with any certainty is that most of what they actually wrote was either what was important to them or necessary to provide sufficient context, or at least interesting enough to write it down. It is at least possible that there were aspects that were important to them in a sense but they did not feel they needed to record. It would, of course, not really be possible to guess at that. A big part of the problem is that they were really not writing for us, but an audience more of their own time and place.
Robert said
I think both ‘Luke’ in Acts and the final author of the gospel of John were making implicit false claims about authorship, something similar to what Bart calls non-pseudepigraphic forgery. (Bart agrees with respect to Acts but not with respect to John.) This may be a more explicit form of your question.
It would certainly be a particular case that would answer the question for those two authors: If they misidentified themselves, then that would show that they at least sometimes misstated facts to deceive their readers (unless there was some convention that would let us identify that as an accepted fiction, but I’m not at all inclined to accept that there was any such accepted practice; I remember a prof in grad school trying to tell me that pseudo-Dionysius wasn’t lying, he was just engaged in a common pious practice, namely, writing in persona of some Biblical figure you wish to emulate–I call BS on such claims, pseudo-Dionysius was a fraud).
As to the particular cases you mention:
I presume in John you are talking about Jn 21:24. Even if you are right and Bart is wrong (and I’m inclined to think Bart’s argument is pretty solid, though not conclusive), still I thought chapter 21 was generally regarded as a later addition to the book, so even if it includes a false self-identification, it really only tells us about the person who added that last chapter, not about the original author of most of the book. (Editing to add: I now notice that you specified the “final redactor” of John–I guess the issue is whether we think the final redactor basically added c. 21 and left the first 20 chapters essentially as he found them, or whether we think he put his mark on the whole thing in ways we can’t reliably sort out, so that the book as it stands really is his and thus the whole thing is under the shadow of his mendacity).
As to the end of Acts, I don’t remember the passage; could you remind me where the author seems to identify himself?
Porphyry said
Robert said
I think both ‘Luke’ in Acts and the final author of the gospel of John were making implicit false claims about authorship, something similar to what Bart calls non-pseudepigraphic forgery. (Bart agrees with respect to Acts but not with respect to John.) This may be a more explicit form of your question.
It would certainly be a particular case that would answer the question for those two authors: If they misidentified themselves, then that would show that they at least sometimes misstated facts to deceive their readers (unless there was some convention that would let us identify that as an accepted fiction, but I’m not at all inclined to accept that there was any such accepted practice; I remember a prof in grad school trying to tell me that pseudo-Dionysius wasn’t lying, he was just engaged in a common pious practice, namely, writing in persona of some Biblical figure you wish to emulate–I call BS on such claims, pseudo-Dionysius was a fraud).
As to the particular cases you mention:
I presume in John you are talking about Jn 21:24. Even if you are right and Bart is wrong (and I’m inclined to think Bart’s argument is pretty solid, though not conclusive), still I thought chapter 21 was generally regarded as a later addition to the book, so even if it includes a false self-identification, it really only tells us about the person who added that last chapter, not about the original author of most of the book. (Editing to add: I now notice that you specified the “final redactor” of John–I guess the issue is whether we think the final redactor basically added c. 21 and left the first 20 chapters essentially as he found them, or whether we think he put his mark on the whole thing in ways we can’t reliably sort out, so that the book as it stands really is his and thus the whole thing is under the shadow of his mendacity).
As to the end of Acts, I don’t remember the passage; could you remind me where the author seems to identify himself?
I assume he is referring to the “we” passages in Acts, not the ending.
On a side note regarding John 21, I asked Bart in Q&A last night about a theory I cotton to that John 21 is a modified version of Mark’s missing ending.
He wasn’t having it.
John is willing to change a significant detail of the narrative, the day of Jesus’ death, in order to make a theological point. Should we assume that he didn’t do this in other places? Should we assume Mark didn’t do this to his sources? I’m not saying the ancients didn’t have any concept of the literal. They interpreted reality like a story because reality was a story. But the characteristic of a story is that it can be interpreted on multiple levels only one of which requires asking whether or not it really happened. Brenmcg’s view of the “truth” as only that which can be said to have “literally happened” is a modern idea. If anyone disagrees please tell me what day Jesus died on?
If there was a lost ending of Mark presumably it would have included some kind of resurrection appearance in Galilee. But if the claim is that the “literal” text (pardon the pun) of chapter 21 was the actual lost last chapter of Mark I think that would be rejected on stylistic grounds.
Mark doesn’t have a missing ending. It has a perfect beginning, middle, and end as prescribed in Aristotle’s Poetics. In my humble opinion. But we’ve discussed this ** you do not have permission to see this link **.
I agree but I do occasionally wonder.
The more I think about this the more obvious it seems to me that they didn’t believe a lot of things they said, and that they either were intentionally deceiving their readers or they were deliberately writing some sort of historical fiction or mythology.
I’ve been thinking about Matthew, and how he portrays Jesus as a new Moses. The thing that is interesting here is that the portrayal involves not just how Matthew describes Jesus and his actions (it isn’t just that he is using language to describe Jesus that had been used to describe Moses, for example) but the events themselves that establish the parallel. And some of those events are pretty significant even though they either only appear in Matthew or only appear in Matthew in the manner that would establish a parallel with Moses.
So some of the more obvious bits:
The slaying of the innocents, parallelling Pharaoh’s killing the Israelite boys. Notoriously not mentioned anywhere else, despite being a pretty obviously important event.
The flight to Egypt and return home is parallel (though reversed in direction) to Moses’s fleeing Pharoah and returning to lead the Israelites to freedom. Again, no one else mentions this.
The baptism of Jesus parallels the Exodus and crossing of the Red sea. (This is one of the few events that everyone mentions, but only in Matthew does it add to the parallel with Moses.)
Jesus fasting for 40 days in the wilderness seems to parallel both Moses’s fasting at Sinai (Deut 9:9) and the 40 years the Israelite spent in the wilderness. (Again, not unique to Matthew, but only in Matthew does it contribute to a parallel with Moses.)
Then the Sermon on the Mount seems to parallel Moses’s giving the Law at Sinai. It even starts with 10 beatitudes paralleling the 10 commandments. And of course, Jesus as Lawgiver in the Sermon on the Mount is perfectly explicit later, with his repeated, “you have heard it said . . . but I say”. Again some of this has parallels in other gospels, but to make this material parallel Moses you need Matthew’s version: 10 beatitudes, not 4; a sermon on the mount, not on a plain; especially, the formula “you have heard it said, . . . but I say. . . ”
The thing that I think is so important here is that the parallel is pretty conspicuous and thematic to the work or at least the early chapters of the work, but that theme is only developed through factual claims about fairly important events that are unique to Matt, which suggests he made it up to develop the theme (or at the least he had a source on which he relied heavily–perhaps an account of Jesus’ early ministry–that made it up to develop the theme).
I’m also moved by the date of the last supper in John, as Stephen notes. I’d also note it isn’t impossible that the synoptic tradition also made up the date of the last supper.I think it is likely that Jesus was executed during the week leading up to Passover, and someone early one moved the last supper to the day of the passover to make a theological connection between the Christian breaking of bread and the Jewish seder. I mean, crucifying someone on the very feast of Passover is historically suspect, as is the suggestion that Simon of Cyrene would have been working in the fields on passover. Which is to say, I’m not sure I trust either the synoptics of John on this.
So all this is to say, I’m pretty well convinced that the gospels don’t believe they history they report was literally true. So the question narrows down to did they intend their readers to believe these historical claims or did they expect their readers to understand that they were taking liberties with the story? In Mark it seems like the literary element is clear enough that the reader would be expected to pick up on it. In Matthew it is not so obvious to me.
A key part of identifying these elements as Matthean inventions is the fact that no one else records the events that form the parallels. Would the author of Matthew have expected his reader to know competing accounts and recognize his inventions as his inventions? Surely he would have expected them to notice the parallel between Jesus and Moses, but would he have expected them to take that as a literary invention or as a providential proof of Jesus’ role as the new Moses? Given how he uses prophecies, I’m inclined to think he wanted his readers to take the parallel with Moses as real divine evidence of Jesus’ role, not as a mere literary invention.
But I don’t know.
Robert said
CEJ said
I assume he is referring to the “we” passages in Acts, not the ending.
Correct.
On a side note regarding John 21, I asked Bart in Q&A last night about a theory I cotton to that John 21 is a modified version of Mark’s missing ending.
He wasn’t having it.
Mark doesn’t have a missing ending. It has a perfect beginning, middle, and end as prescribed in Aristotle’s Poetics. In my humble opinion. But we’ve discussed this ** you do not have permission to see this link **.
We did indeed discuss this point, and I wasn’t trying to resurrect it here, but merely noting I got to hear Ehrman’s view in some detail. As to your certitude regarding Mark’s ending, I don’t share it. Neither did Metzger.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert