Loading...QUESTION:
I heard a scholar (I think it was JD Crossan) saying that the absence of a resurrected Jesus in Mark’s original gospel reflects the confusion and anxiety that forlorn Jews would have felt after the destruction of the Temple? Do you think this is the case? If so, how does it fit in with the belief (widespread among scholars, I believe) that the accounts of a visibly resurrected Jesus were in circulation long before 70 AD and probably came from Peter, Paul , and Mary M?
RESPONSE:
I don’t recall ever hearing this view before – so I’m not sure where you may have read it. I would have to read a fuller exposition of the view to make better sense of it, but off hand, I don’t think it’s plausible, for several reasons.
First, a lot hinges on what is meant by “the absence of the resurrected Jesus” in Mark. People often get Mark’s account wrong by saying that there is no resurrection in Mark. That’s absolutely not true. In Mark, Jesus is definitely raised from the dead and is announced as raised from the dead and the women are told that he is going up to Galilee where he is to meet the disciples. The Gospel ends there, without the women telling the disciples (woops!). But Jesus is resurrected, in the body; his tomb is empty; and he is alive again and mobile.
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a Member. Click here for membership options. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN!!!
Another good post. I also just read the interview of you on the 6/3/13 Christian Post blog, the Michael Patton 6/1/13 Credo House Ministries blog criticizing you, the 3/25/11 Huffington Post interview of you, and the 1/17/11 Christian Post blog where Craig criticizes you. I think these critics are way too harsh on you and I think it just shows that you are writing on subjects that mean a lot to a lot of people. Keep going. Clearly, one cannot present extensive evidence, as Patton and Craig demand, in short articles or interviews. I, for one, don’t see you as being on a “crusade” against Christianity, but as being on a quest for “history.” Ron
Yeah, people aren’t hearing me. I’m opposed to fundamentalism, but not Christianity. The problem, I guess, is that people don’t realize that these are not the same thing.
Thanks for your reply. As you know, people are very, very sensitive about anything that questions their religious views which they are convinced are true. I wish people could discuss things without such rancor.
You used to be a fundamentalist Christian, then a non-fundamentalist Christian, and are now not a Christian, although you don’t see Christianity as being an unreasonable religious choice. Just how do you define non-fundamentalist Christianity and what do non-fundamentalist Christians believe and not believe in the Bible?
Fundamentalist Christianity insists on the literal truth of the Bible and claims that there are no mistakes of any kind in the Bible (historical, geographical, textual, etc.). Non-fundamentalist Christianity thinks none of the above. There are large numbers of different beliefs about what Christainity and how the Bible fits into it — not simply one non-fundamenatist version. But lots and lots of versions.
OK, I understand that, so let me ask my question more directly. If you had to write a creed (a la the Nicene creed) that defined the minimum set of beliefs necessary to call oneself a Christian, how would it read. The reason I ask is that there seems so much in the Bible that is mythology, made-up, exaggerated, contradictory, forgery, etc., that I can’t see much left to believe in.
Sorry to be evasive, but I don’t think I would do that, because I don’t think being a Christian is a matter of meeting a set of pre-established criteria that someone gets to choose. My view is that if anyone considers him/herself to be a follower of Jesus then s/he is a Christian. That may not be very satisfying, I know, but it’s better, in my judgment, than providing a litmus test of doctrines that have to be accepted.
Prof Ehrman
May I ask a favor?
Can you recommend a good commentary on the Gospel of Mark?
Ok…two favors.
I just got the The Great Courses catalog and this is the month where they have the big discount so I was going to purchase your New Testament survey series and I’m just wondering, is there a reason to prefer the DVD over the CD other than the pleasure of watching you work? Do you use a lot of visual aids to your lectures? The advantage of the CDs for me is that I can carry them around and listen to them during my commute back and forth from the office.
Thank you!
Best scholarly commentary is the two-volume one by Joel Marcus in the Anchor Bible.
There are some visuals. So it depends on whether you want to listen in your car (or whatever) or see me in action with some visuals.
it seems the big big moment in Christianity is when it goes from being very Jewish to very non Jewish. was Paul the only reason for this or were there other Paul like characters evangelising to the non jews before? was it initially non Jewish Greeks that were the first Christians? did any of the early followers of Christians help in making it non Jewish? (i know the story says that peter went to Rome but it seems unlikely a Jewish peasant would be able to travel around the world like this, and he couldn’t speak any useful language).
No, I don’t think Paul was the only one. But he may have pressed the point, and its logic, more than others.
Since you have been focusing of late on the unknown author of Mark, and because you think of yourself as a “historian,” I have a three-part question. 1) Which of the canonized gospels is most reliable as “history.” 2) Which of the characters described in the Four Gospels appears to be the most authentic (i.e., non-fictional)? And 3) which , as depicted, seems to the least real as an actual flesh-and-blood person? Last of all, please explain “Why?” 🙂
I don’t understand why you put historian in quotation marks.
1) Mark; 2) not sure there is “a” most authentic figure; 3) I’m not sure what your third questoin is; there is evidently a grammatical error.
Actually, it’s six questions. (I must have been in too much of a hurry.) What I meant to add was “and why?” after each question. So 1) why do you think Mark is more reliable than Matthew, Luke and John, as written history? And, 2) if there isn’t “a” most authentic historic figure, as depicted through their dialogue and actions — which ones stand out as more true to life, historically speaking, and why? This question covers the “least real” character, too, which I happen to think is “Judas Iscariot.” Of course, if all of them are more or less equal, then you are pretty much off the hook. 🙂
As far as using quotation marks around the word “historian,” I probably did it for emphasis and because I see biblical scholars as a different breed of historians. For me, their is task is similar to, but distinct from people like Will Durant, Edward Gibbon, Arnold Toynbee, David MacCullogh, Stephen Ambrose and the like.
Yes, and I would say the task of Will Durant was different from the task of David McCullough. Historians come in lots of shapes and sizes. Yes, it’s true I’m a biblical scholar. But I am also a historian. Most of my research does not involve the Bible, but the history of Christianity in the second to early fourth centuries.
Ah, why. Yes, that would take a very long series of posts. I’ll think about addressing it there.
Good enough. What you say is very true. There are many different types of historians. It’s just that “history” as portrayed in the New Testament is somewhat suspect, I think. 🙂
Yes, it’s completely suspect. That’s why one needs to have a historical approach to it.
this is a very rude question that mostly doesnt make anysense
From my own recollection of Crossan, I think your interlocutor is correct that he made such an assertion.
Actually, let me restate that. I think Crossan made the case that the ressurection theme itself came about in response to the destruction of jerusalem, and that mark is the source for all others on that theme.. I dont recall him connecting it to an absence of ressurrection appearances in Mark.
Well that’s not possible. The teaching of jesus’ resurrection can be dated with some assurance to no later than 32 or 33 CE, and probably actually goes back to at least a few weeks after Jesus’ death. The destruction of Jerusalem was 40 years later. I think maybe you’re misreading Crossan?
probably mis-remembering. Sloppy post on my part, citing something I [thought that I ] read 10 years ago.
Again you state that “This Gospel is not written by a Jew”, but still I think this is more your (legitimate) scholar opinion rather than a well-established fact.
From a textual standpoint, after reading (for example) “Aramaic sources of Mark’s Gospel” by Maurice Casey I’m more keen to say that Mark’s gospel could possibly be written by a Jew (at least by someone who could translate from Aramaic to Greek in a meaningful way) at a quite early date, based on some eyewitnesses sources.
Regarding geography, Mark seems to be quite accurate on Galilee and surroundings while he’s less precise for other places.. In any case, ignorance is quite a common problem and not necessarily a Gentile trademark 😉
Yes, there are people who have argued this. But I would judge that it is a very slim minority opinion. Mark was almost certainly written in Greek, and is not based directly on eyewitnesses. There’s lots of literature on this. A good standard commentary that represents mainly consensus scholarship is Joel Marcus’s.
Yes, Mark was certainly written in Greek and I don’t think the author has ever been in touch with any eyewitness. I just wanted to say that the author translated in Greek some aramaic written sources that don’t show many secondary editions (so possibly based on eyewitnesses accounts). Thus the author was at least bilingual and made a meaningful (although difficult) translation of such aramaic traditions (such arguments are supported by Casey and Crossley, who also argue for an early date of composition). The place of composition can well be between Palestine and Syria (Theissen, Marcus). These hypothesis, that could point to a jewish author (as Paula Fredriksen argue), might be supported by a slim minority of scholars, however the profile of such scholars is quite important (note that none of them are conservative christian scholars!).
It’s not clear to me whether Mark himself did the translations or if they were translated already inthe traditions that he inherited.
I think it is interesting, nonetheless, that Aramaic shows up at all in any of the gospels originally written in Greek. From my limited perspective, that seems to indicate that there was indeed an oral tradition that developed first. By the time the author of Mark began writing this gospel, that oral tradition must have solidified. You say he didn’t use the Q source. Could the author have had access to other smaller written sources? I remember studying about kerygma, which began to be strung together like pearls on a necklace. Perhaps someone wrote down a memory of a sermon or a memory of a story. Another person may have written another small account about a parable Jesus spoke or a miracle he performed. My memory is imperfect. It’s been over 20 years since I took that class, but I seem to recall such a string of small written accounts coming together as disorganized collection before the gospel writers began to make sense of them in their detailed accounts.
Yes, I think the traditions can be traced back — some of them — to an Aramaic stage, and I think that this stage must have been very early. And I do think there were written sources prior to the ones that happen to survive (as Luke as much as tells us: Luke 1:1-4).
Excuse me. The term I had in mind when I mentioned the string of pearls was pericope, not kerygma. It’s been a long time.
Yes, you may definitely be right 🙂 Casey and Crossley claim that there is no evidence of secondary editions on the “aramaic sources” of Mark, however, I admit that the traditional scholar view of Greek sources for Mark is still the most probable. Also, I don’t fully agree with the very early date of composition proposed by Casey/Crossley. I’ll think about it.. Many thanks for your patience with me!
One question: Regarding Mark’s knowledge of resurrection appearances you say
“It’s true that there are no resurrection appearances in Mark, but that is almost certainly *not* because Mark has never heard of resurrection appearances. It rather has to do with Mark’s own way of telling the story … Throughout the Gospel when Jesus does something fantastic and marvelous, he tells the person to whom he has done it “Don’t tell anyone.” … at the end, the women are told “Go, tell.” And they don’t tell a soul…. ”
The women were not told by Jesus at the end to go, tell. Doesn’t this rule out any knowledge on Mark’s part of at least some resurrection appearances, in particular a resurrection appearance of the sort reported in John 20:15-18? If he was guided by a tell/don’t tell motif , it seems that he would have mentioned it.
Thanks
Yes, I don’t think that the author of Mark knew of all the resurrection stories from the later Gospels.