[Dialogue] Spong on passover part 6

[KroegerD@aol.com]

March 9, 2005


The Connection between the Crucifixion and the Passover, Part VI:
Sorting Out the Texts 


Today, as a way to round out this series on the biblical accounts of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, events which most scholars date around 30 CE, I want to take what might seem to some to be a detour. I will line up these biblical sources in their chronological order, which stretches from about 50 to 100 CE. I will then walk you, my readers, through this material from the first writings to the last, pointing out overt contradictions, places where the story grows, and illustrations of how the miraculous has been heightened. In this manner I hope to demonstrate the inadequacy of trying to interpret the Bible literally. My goal is to assist my readers to step into a new vision of the reality of the resurrection, which requires first a step away from our blurred, culturally imposed understanding of Easter. The old vision is primarily a collage drawn from several incompatible sources. It is biblically inaccurate, and is not informed by any of the scholarship of the last 200 years. Still in many places even within the Christian Church, that understanding of Easter continues to masquerade as "orthodoxy."

I begin with Paul, the first writer in the New Testament, and in particular with I Corinthians, an epistle dated around 55 CE. This is not only the earliest written account of the final events in Jesus' life that we possess, but it is the only account the Christian Church had until the early seventies. We need to recognize that Paul had died before the first gospel was written; so step number one in the interpretive process is not to read Paul through the images created in the later gospels about which Paul knew absolutely nothing. Those people, who seem to think that Paul took the simple religion of Jesus found in the gospels and corrupted it into convoluted theology, do not understand anything about early Christianity. The gospels assume the writings of Paul. Paul does not assume the writings of the gospels.

The first thing one notices, when Paul is isolated and treated as the oldest Christian source, is that there are no narrative details connected with his descriptions of the final events in the life of Jesus. All that Paul says about the crucifixion is that, "Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures." In this Pauline material, there are no stories about Gethsemane, the betrayal, the trial, the torture, the crown of thorns, the two thieves, the behavior of the crowd, the words from the cross, or the darkness at noon. There is no mention of the moment when Jesus breathed his last. Perhaps Paul knew nothing about these stories. Perhaps he knew about them but chose not to relay these details. Those are the only options. Since human experience suggests that stories grow in the telling, the former is far more probable than the latter.

Next Paul says that following Jesus' death, "He was buried." Note that there is no mention of a tomb, or of Joseph of Arimathea. The suggestion is that he knew nothing about either tradition. Then Paul says quite sparsely that, "He was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures." There is no account of the women coming to the tomb on the first day of the week and finding it empty. Certainly there is no suggestion that these women ever saw the risen Christ. Indeed, Paul relates no narrative content describing anyone's experience of 'seeing' the risen Christ. He simply lists those to whom, he asserts, Jesus had appeared. They were in Paul's order: Cephas (i.e. Simon Peter), the twelve, 500 brethren, James, the Apostles and finally Paul. Though this is the earliest list of witnesses we have, it is nonetheless full of questions. Why does Paul say that Jesus appeared to the twelve? Does that mean that he did not know about Judas? Matthew will say later that the first time the risen Christ appeared to the disciples, it was only to the "eleven." It was at least 35 years after the death of Paul before the story of Matthias being chosen to succeed Judas entered the Christian story. Who were the 500 brethren? There is no hint in any of the later gospels that anyone has been able to correlate with that Pauline reference. Who was James? There are only three possibilities: James, the son of Zebedee, James, the son of Alphaeus, and James, the brother of Jesus. Which one does Paul mean? Who were "the Apostles?" Are they different from the twelve? Paul appears to think so. Finally, Paul says, "he appeared to me." Please note that Paul is claiming that his experience of 'seeing' the risen Christ was like all the others except that his was last. Since no one I know thinks that Paul confronted a Jesus who had physiologically walked out of a tomb, it begs the question as to what the earliest Christians meant by the resurrection of Jesus. The best estimate as to the date of Paul's conversion, according to church historian Adolph Harnack, was one to six years after the crucifixion. In either case, Paul's witness is that what he saw was no different from that which all the others on his list saw. This fact certainly works against anyone attempting to claim that the resurrection of Jesus involved a physical, bodily resuscitation. That is all Paul says about the crucifixion, burial and resurrection which means that this was all the Christian Church had in writing until Mark wrote in the eighth decade.

Having previously looked at Mark's story of Jesus' passion in this series, I will focus in this column only on what Mark specifically adds to the developing Easter story (see 16:1-8). Mark introduces the women. They are Mary Magdalene, Mary, the mother of James, and Salome. He says these women go to Jesus' tomb "to anoint him." As they journey they wonder how they will roll back the stone from "the door of the tomb." To their surprise on arrival they find it already rolled away. How that happened is not explained. They enter the open tomb only to see, not an angel, but a young man dressed in a white robe who announces that Jesus has been raised and urges them to go tell Peter and the disciples, "he is going before you to Galilee, there you will see him." That is all Mark says about the resurrection. Please note that the risen Christ never appears to anyone in Mark's gospel. The authentic part of Mark's text ends with the women fleeing in fear and saying nothing to anyone. This means that when the early church had only the writings of Paul and Mark, which is all that existed prior to the 9th decade, there was not yet a description of a physically resuscitated body that would lead anyone to believe that the resurrection was understood as the restoration to life in this world of the three days dead Jesus.

Matthew finally introduces that idea in his gospel, which is generally dated in the mid-eighties. There is no doubt that Matthew had Mark in front of him when he composed his work, so by reading them both we can watch the changes that Matthew makes in Mark's text. Matthew drops Salome from Mark's list of the women who came to the tomb at dawn. He gives no purpose for that visit as Mark had done. Matthew has also added an earthquake in which an angel descends out of the sky and rolls the stone away. Matthew, who alone had added a retinue of Temple police to stand watch at the tomb to guard against any miraculous circumstances occurring, now says that the appearance of this angel caused that guard to become so fearful, they "became like dead men." Matthew has the angel tell the women that Jesus has been raised, and to urge them to tell the disciples that Jesus "is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him." Contrary to Mark's account, in which the women "said nothing to anyone," Matthew's women obediently go at once to tell the disciples. Jesus meets them in the garden and speaks to them. The women, Matthew says, "took hold of his (presumably physical) feet and worshiped him." That is the first account in Christian written history suggesting that the resurrection was somehow physical. A minimum of 50 years has passed since the time of the crucifixion.

Matthew then adds further intrigue to his story about the guards. When they awakened and found the tomb empty they plotted to tell people that his disciples stole his body while they were asleep. Matthew concludes his narrative by relating that promised appearance of the risen Christ in Galilee. It took place on a mountaintop. Jesus appears to have come out of the sky, clothed with the "authority of heaven and earth." He commissions them "to go into all the world and promises that he, Jesus, will be with them "to the close of the age."

When we move to Luke's gospel, which is generally dated between 88-93, the story has grown even more. In Luke the women go to the tomb with spices as if to finish the burial process. The list of women is once again different. The named ones are Magdalene, Mary, the mother of James, and Joanna, but Luke covers his bases by saying that some other women were also there. The announcing figure, who was a young man in a white robe in Mark and a supernatural angel in Matthew, has now become two supernatural angels in Luke. The promise that the disciples will meet the risen Christ in Galilee has, however, been dropped. Luke will deny any association of Galilee with resurrection. The women, who do not see Jesus in Luke, report these things to the disciples. Luke then adds the Emmaus Road story, told nowhere else in scripture. In this narrative Cleopas and his partner recognize Jesus in the breaking of the bread, then rush back to Jerusalem to tell the disciples, only to be told that Jesus has by now already appeared to Simon Peter.

While they are talking, Jesus appears. This is the first moment in written Christian history in which the risen Jesus and his disciples are said to have come together in Jerusalem. Jesus is very physical. He offers his flesh for inspection. He asks for food to eat. He opens their minds to understand the scriptures that explain why Christ had to suffer. Then, telling them to remain in Jerusalem until they are clothed with power from on high, he led them out to Bethany and parted from them by being carried up into heaven. Later, when Luke writes Acts, he will put 40 days between the resurrection and the ascension. That is not so in his gospel.

Finally in John, writing near the turn of the first century, only one woman, Magdalene goes to the tomb. She finds the stone rolled away and runs to report this to Simon Peter and the "disciple whom Jesus loved," both of whom have come to the tomb to verify her story. It is here that the story of the grave clothes, wrapped neatly in two separate places as if Jesus has simply risen out of them, first comes into the Christian tradition. The disciples return to their place of hiding while Magdalene comes back to the tomb to mourn. She looks again into the tomb and this time sees two angels who inquire as to the cause of her tears. "Because they have taken away my Lord and I do not know where they have laid him, she replies." Then Jesus appears. Mistaking him for the gardener, she asks him where he has placed the body so that she might reclaim it. He speaks her name. Magdalene recognizes him. He tells her that he has not yet ascended and urges her to go tell the disciples that "I am ascending." She obeys and exits.

That evening, John continues, the now ascended Jesus appears to the disciples inside a locked room. He breathes on them and says, "Receive the Holy Spirit." Thomas is absent. A week later the story is repeated with Thomas present. Jesus offers his wounds for inspection. Thomas believes. The narrative concludes. However, in the next chapter, another resurrection story, this time set in Galilee not Jerusalem, is told by John. Peter is confronted and told to "feed my sheep." Then John concludes the chapter and the book a second time.

These are the raw biblical data. Next week I will seek to interpret these narratives in the final section of this series leading us toward Easter.

-- John Shelby Spong


Question and Answer
With John Shelby Spong

Harry from Hartford, Connecticut, asks: 

How does the "Q" document fit with the Synagogue theory of Synoptic Gospel formation as you describe it? 

Dear Harry, 

Your question, raised at a lecture I gave at the Hartford Theological Seminary in Connecticut, needs first to be placed into a context for the benefit of my readers. I was lecturing on the way the Synoptic Gospels were shaped by the synagogue during the oral period of Christian history. By the oral period I mean from the approximate time of the death of Jesus in 30 C.E. to the time when written gospels appear i.e., 70-100 C.E.

When one reads the Synoptic Gospels (Mark, Matthew and Luke) one becomes aware of how deeply these stories are shaped by the Hebrew Scriptures. Prophets are thought to predict specific things that happened in the life of Jesus. Then New Testament stories reflect Old Testament themes over and over and over again. Jesus' birth and Herod's murder of the children is a retelling of the story of Moses' birth and Pharaoh's murder of the children. Abraham and Sarah having a baby, Isaac, in their old age is reflected in Zechariah and Elizabeth having a baby, John the Baptist, in their old age. This mutual dependence could be illustrated ad infinitum. I argued further that it was liturgy and not history that connected the Passover with Jesus' Passion; that John the Baptist was made to articulate the Rosh Hashanah message; that the harvest parable of the sower in Mark 4 reflects the harvest celebration of the Jews called Sukkoth or Tabernacles; that the story of Jesus' transfiguration reflects the Jewish observance of Dedication and so on.

Your question was how does the theory of the formation of the Synoptics square with the "Q" document. Let me take a moment to make sure my readers know what the "Q" hypothesis is. The world of biblical scholarship is almost universally sure that Mark was not only the first gospel to be written but that both Matthew and Luke have Mark in front of them and sometimes copy Mark verbatim, sometimes with alteration, into their own work. Matthew used about 90% of Mark. Luke used about 50%. We can set Matthew and Luke side by side and remove from each of them everything they took from Mark. When that is done, we become aware that there is still much identical or near identical material common to both Matthew and Luke. These common parts generally contain the sayings or teaching of Jesus. The theory behind the "Q" hypothesis is that both Matthew and Luke had a second document in addition to Mark that was an early collection of the sayings of Jesus. No pieces of that presumably now lost document have ever been discovered. "Q" supporters, however, presume that it must once have existed.

Most American biblical scholarship is strongly attached to the "Q" hypothesis. That is not as true among British and European biblical scholars, among whom "Q" has endured a decline in commitment in recent decades. "Q" is still the working hypothesis of the leaders of the Jesus Seminar. Though I am a Fellow of the Jesus Seminar, I am not personally convinced of the truth of this hypothesis which makes me a minority voice in that community, where I contend with those I respect, who are far more competent scholars than I. Nonetheless I do not find the arguments for "Q" compelling.

The only other possible theory to account for these aforementioned similarities, and thus the one to which I adhere, suggests that Matthew added these additions to Mark and that Luke had both Mark and Matthew before him when he wrote. Luke tended to prefer Mark but he did copy some of Matthew's additions into his text and this accounts for the presence of material identical to both Matthew and Luke but not included in Mark. This makes Matthew the author of the "Q" material and it argues against it being a much earlier and independent source. I lean in this debate on the scholarship of Michael Donald Goulder, a New Testament professor at the University of Birmingham in the United Kingdom, who wrote what I believe is a definitive critique of the "Q" hypothesis in the preface to his monumental study on Luke's Gospel, a two-volume work, entitled "Luke: A New Paradigm."

Now to address your question directly. I don't think the "Q" hypothesis affects my contention that the Synoptics are shaped by the synagogue. It simply adds another dimension to the interpretive process.

I enjoy the debate. I do not expect to win but I also do not expect to lose. That is what makes the debate both fun and eternal.

-- John Shelby Spong


-- 
Dick Kroeger