Deciphering the Gospels vs.
the Mainstream Consensus
Deciphering
the Gospels is in agreement with the mainstream consensus
on many specific points, such as when various texts were written, who
wrote them, the authenticity of various passages, etc. However, Deciphering the Gospels
also challenges the mainstream consensus along many points as well.
Provided below are major examples of where Deciphering the Gospels
challenges the mainstream consensus.
The Cleansing
of the Temple
One of the major findings presented in Deciphering the Gospels
is the literary basis of the temple cleansing scene. The temple
cleansing scene, present in all four canonical Gospels, is one of the
scenes from the Gospels most widely believed to be historically true by
mainstream biblical scholars. Here we can compare Price’s
assessment of the temple cleansing scene in Deciphering the Gospels
to assessments from other mainstream biblical scholars.
R.
G. Price
"We now arrive
at one of the most important scenes for establishing our understanding
of the Gospel called Mark and the other canonical Gospels. The reason
that this scene is so important is because it is so widely believed to
be historically true and it is seen as the justification for the
Crucifixion. This scene is widely believed to be historically true
because it exists in all four canonical Gospels, and it is not
supernatural, so it is seemingly plausible. As we shall see throughout
this book, however, the case against the historical validity of the
temple-cleansing scene based on the literary evidence alone is
overwhelming. So let’s start by looking at the literary allusion used
to craft this scene.
Mark 11:
12 The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. 13 Seeing in the distance a fig tree
in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it,
he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. 14
Then he said to the tree, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.”
And his disciples heard him say it.
15 On reaching
Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple area and began driving out those
who were buying and selling there. He overturned the
tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves, 16
and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple
courts. 17 And as he taught them, he said, “Is it not written:
“‘My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations’? But you
have made it ‘a den of robbers.’”
18 The chief priests and
the teachers of the law heard this and began looking for a way to kill
him, for they feared him, because the whole crowd was
amazed at his teaching.
19 When evening came, they went out of the city.
20 In the morning, as they went along, they saw the fig tree withered
from the roots. 21 Peter remembered and said to Jesus,
“Rabbi, look! The fig tree you cursed has withered!”
This scene is clearly based on a passage from the book of Hosea, shown
below:
Hosea 9:
1 Do not rejoice, O Israel; do not be jubilant like the other nations.
For you have been unfaithful to your God; ...
7 The days of punishment are coming, the days of reckoning are at hand.
Let Israel know this. Because your sins are so many and your hostility
so great, the prophet is considered a fool, the inspired man a maniac.
8 The prophet, along
with my God, is the watchman over Ephraim, yet snares await him on all
his paths, and hostility in the house of his God.
9 They have sunk deep into corruption, as in the days of Gibeah. God
will remember their wickedness and punish them for their sins.
10 ‘When I found Israel, it was like finding grapes in the desert; when I saw your fathers, it was
like seeing the early fruit on the fig tree. But when they
came to Baal Peor, they consecrated themselves to that shameful idol
and became as vile as the thing they loved.
11 Ephraim’s glory will fly away like a bird—no birth, no pregnancy, no
conception.
12 Even if they rear children, I will bereave them of every one. Woe to
them when I turn away from them!
13 I have seen Ephraim, like Tyre, planted in a pleasant place. But
Ephraim will bring out their children to the slayer.”
14 Give them, O LORD—what will you give them? Give them wombs that
miscarry and breasts that are dry.
15 “Because of all their wickedness in Gilgal, I hated them there. Because of their sinful deeds, I
will drive them out of my house. I will no longer love
them; all their leaders are rebellious.
16 Ephraim is blighted,
their root is withered, they yield no fruit. Even if they
bear children, I will slay their cherished offspring.’
17 My God will reject them because they have not obeyed him;
We can see in the Gospel text that the cursing of the fig tree, the
driving out of people from the temple (house of God), and the hostility
toward Jesus are all related elements that are drawn from Hosea 9. All
of these elements and the order in which they are presented in the
Gospel called Mark are necessary to make the association between Hosea
9 and the narrative.
Most important, however, is that if we accept the fact that the Markan
narrative is actually a literary allusion, then it means this scene is
not based on any real event that ever took place. It means that “Jesus”
never cursed a fig tree, and “Jesus” never threw anyone out of the
temple. None of this actually ever happened; this isn’t a historical
event. The scene is merely a literary allusion, yet every other Gospel
contains the temple-cleansing scene. If the cleansing of the temple
comes from Hosea 9, not from a real-world event, then the fact that it
exists in all of the other Gospels means that all of the other Gospels,
including John, had to have ultimately gotten the scene from Mark, as
we will explore in chapter 3.
This is extremely significant because this is one of the actions
attributed to Jesus that is most widely believed to be true, even by
secular New Testament scholars. The fact that this scene is based on a
literary allusion has not been recognized even by top theologians and
Bible scholars."
- R. G. Price; Deciphering
the Gospels; pp 21-23
As this shows, the temple cleaning scene is clearly a literary allusion
to Hosea 9. The elements of the scene are derived from literary
references, they are not an accounting of real-world events. In chapter
3 Price compares the scene in Mark to the same scene in the
Gospels of
Matthew, Luke, and John to show that the scene in each of these others
works is clearly derived from the scene that was originally invented by
the author of the Gospel of Mark. This shows that none of the other
Gospel writers had any outside knowledge of this event or any other
information to go on, because they are all clearly copying elements
that were invented based on literary references. So the fact that the
scene exists in all of the Gospels does not make the scene more
credible, in fact it shows that the other Gospels are all
derived from Mark.
Let’s now see what mainstream scholars have said about this same scene.
Bart
Ehrman:
Most scholars
recognize that some aspects of our accounts appear exaggerated,
including Mark’s claim that Jesus completely shut down the operation of
the Temple (if no one could carry any vessels, it would have been
impossible to sacrifice and butcher the animals—which was after all
what the Temple was for). As we have seen, the Temple complex was
immense, and there would have been armed guards present to prevent any
major disturbances. Moreover, if Jesus had actually created an enormous
stir in the Temple, it’s nearly impossible to explain why he wasn’t
arrested on the spot and taken out of the way before he could stir up
the crowds. For these
reasons, it looks as if Mark’s account represents an exaggeration of
Jesus’ actions. But exaggerations
aside, it is almost certain that Jesus did something that caused a
disturbance in the Temple — for example, overturned some
tables and made at least a bit of a ruckus. As I’ve noted, the event is
multiply attested in independent sources.
Moreover, it
coincides with Jesus’ predictions about the Temple, that it would soon
be destroyed. For this reason, a good number of scholars
have begun to recognize that Jesus’ actions in the Temple represented a
symbolic expression of his proclamation. We should recall that Jesus
sometimes engaged in symbolic acts that illustrated his apocalyptic
message
- Bart Ehrman; Jesus:
Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium; pp
212-213 (emphasis mine)
Here Bart Ehrman is concluding, based on no evidence at all, that he is
“almost certain that Jesus did something”. Why? Simply because this
scene is present in all of the Gospels. But as we can
see, the scene is clearly a literary fabrication. The literary basis of
the scene is solid actual evidence that the scene is a fictional
invention of the author.
Regarding the “symbolism” of “Jesus’ actions”, Price explains in Deciphering the Gospels
that all of this symbolism is an invention of the author of the story;
it is not an account of a real person undertaking a constant series of
symbolic actions that corelate with scriptures and foretell future
events. Jesus wasn’t engaging in symbolic acts to illustrate his
apocalyptic message - the writer of the Gospel of Mark was
creating a symbolic story about the outcome of the First Jewish-Roman
War, that had just resulted in the destruction of the temple and the
decimation of Judea.
J.
P. Meier:
In the spring
of 30 A.D. (or possibly 33), Jesus journeyed to Jerusalem for his final
Passover. As he entered the ancient capital of King David, he apparently chose to make a
symbolic claim to messianic status by riding in on a donkey amid the
acclamation of his followers ( multiple attestation of Mark
11:1-10 and John 12:12-19), thus evoking the memory of a
prophecy by Zechariah (9:9) about a righteous, victorious,
yet peaceful king entering Jerusalem on a donkey. Jesus followed up this symbolic
entry with a symbolic action in the temple, disrupting the
selling and buying of sacrificial animals (multiple attestation of Mark
11:15-17 and John 2:13-17). While this so-called cleansing of the
temple has often been interpreted as a call for reform of the temple
and a purer worship, in the context of Jesus' eschatological message it
more likely symbolized the end of the old order, including the temple. These two symbolic actions of
Jesus may have been the reason why the priestly aristocracy chose to
arrest Jesus during this particular visit to Jerusalem, as
opposed to his earlier stays. Jesus himself chose to press the issue,
forcing the authorities to make a decision for or against him.
Various
sayings in the Gospels that probably go back to Jesus show
that he reckoned with the possibility of a violent death (Matt.
23:37-39; Luke 13:31-33; Mark 10:35-40; 8:32-33; 12:1-12).
- J. P. Meier; Jesus Christ in the New Testament: Part One:
The Historical Jesus behind the Gospels; pp 15-16 (emphasis
mine)
Here again highly esteemed biblical scholar J. P. Meier states that
Jesus engaged in a series of deliberate symbolic actions based on
references to passages from the Jewish scriptures. Meier has no problem
stating that various sayings in the Gospels “probably” go back to
things the real Jesus said. Like Ehrman, Meier assumes that multiple
attestations to an event give credibility to the historical reality of
said event. But as is shown in Deciphering
the Gospels, these multiple attestations are merely the
product of copying. The fact that a single story was copied many times
doesn’t lend credibility to the story, in fact it does the opposite.
The
Jesus Seminar:
"That
Jesus engaged in some anti-temple act and made some statement against
the temple, or against customary practices within its precincts, is
attested in all four canonical gospels. The Fellows of the Seminar took
a poll on two related general questions:
- Did Jesus perform some anti-temple act?
- Did Jesus speak against the temple?
More than two-thirds of the Fellows responded affirmatively to both
questions."
- Funk, Hoover and The Jesus Seminar; The Five Gospels: What did Jesus
Really Say?; pp 97-98
The Jesus Seminar is seen by many biblical scholars as representing the
most rigorous academic approach to assessing the Gospels and
identifying the historical truths behind them. Yet the approach used by
the Jesus Seminar has many of the same shortcomings as other mainstream
academics, which fail to identify the literary sources underpinning the
Gospel narratives.
This drives directly at the crux of what Deciphering the Gospels
is all
about. Both Bart Ehrman and John Paul Meier are highly esteemed
mainstream biblical scholars. Bart Ehrman is a secular scholar. J. P.
Meier is Roman Catholic. The Jesus Seminar is seen as a liberal and
relatively unbiased investigative body. Their assessments of
the
temple cleansing
scene provided here are textbook examples of mainstream biblical
scholarship. Mainstream biblical scholarship holds that Jesus was a
real person, and that the Gospels are at least loosely based on real
actions and sayings of Jesus. Deciphering
the Gospels presents evidence to the contrary. But when we
talk about the “mainstream consensus”, let us be very clear
about what the mainstream consensus is really built on.
Sayings of
Paul and Jesus
One of the major findings presented in Deciphering the Gospels
is that the teachings and character of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark are
based on the letters of Paul. Deciphering
the Gospels
is not the first book to present this finding, but it is a relatively
new finding of intertextual biblical analysis. This is a finding that
dramatically overturns the mainstream consensus, the importance of
which has not yet been widely acknowledged.
The mainstream approach to the issue of similarities between the
writings of Paul and the Gospel dialog of Jesus is illustrated by the
following statement from the Jesus Seminar regarding Jesus’ comment
about moving mountains in Mark 11:
"There
is a reference to moving mountains in 1 Cor 13:2, although it is not
attributed to Jesus. Paul’s knowledge of the saying indicates that the
connection between faith and moving mountains was widespread in the
early tradition."
- Funk, Hoover and The Jesus Seminar; The Five Gospels: What did Jesus
Really Say?; pp 99
While this passage is not directly addressed in Deciphering the Gospels,
this illustrates the differing approaches used. The Jesus Seminar, and
most mainstream biblical scholars, work from the assumption that the
writer of the Gospel of Mark had no knowledge of the letters of Paul.
Under this assumption, when they see similarities between the letters
of Paul and the dialog of Jesus they conclude that such sayings must
have been part of a widespread oral tradition that both Paul and the
writer of Mark drew from. But what more rigorous textual analysis shows
is that the writer of Mark was actually using the letters of Paul. The
similarities are not evidence of a common oral tradition, they are
evidence for direct literary borrowing. This shows that Paul is
actually the source of many of the teachings attributed to Jesus.
The teaching about paying taxes to the emperor is a perfect example of
this.
"Everything
about this anecdote commends its authenticity. Jesus’ retort to the
question of taxes is a masterful bit of enigmatic repartee. He avoids
the trap laid for him by the question without really resolving the
issue: he doesn’t advise them to pay the tax and he doesn’t advise them
not to pay it; he advises them to know the difference between the
claims of the emperor and the claims of God. Nevertheless, the early
Christian interpretation of this story affirmed the Christian
obligation to pay the tax. Paul struggled with this issue (Rom 13:1-7)
and came out on the side of expedience: pay everyone their proper dues,
including the civil authorities, who have received their appointment
from God."
- Funk, Hoover and The Jesus Seminar; The Five Gospels: What did Jesus
Really Say?; pp 102
Compare this to analysis of the same passage in Deciphering the Gospels:
In
the next scene, Jesus is famously presented with three questions. The
answers to each of the three questions have strong parallels with texts
in the letters of Paul.
Mark 12:
13
Then they sent to him some Pharisees and some Herodians to trap him in
what he said. 14 And they came and said to him, ‘Teacher, we know that
you are sincere, and show deference to no one; for you do not regard
people with partiality, but teach the way of God in accordance with
truth. Is it lawful to
pay taxes to the emperor, or not?
15 Should we pay them, or should we not?’ But knowing their hypocrisy,
he said to them, ‘Why are you putting me to the test? Bring me a
denarius and let me see it.’ 16 And they brought one. Then he said to
them, ‘Whose head is this, and whose title?’ They answered, ‘The
emperor’s.’ 17 Jesus said to them, ‘Give
to the emperor the things that are the emperor’s, and to God the things
that are God’s.’ And they were utterly amazed at him.
With
this passage, the author of Mark was most likely addressing one of the
grievances that played a role in the Jewish rebellion against Rome that
led to the war. In addition, this passage also follows Pauline
teachings, as outlined in Paul’s letter to the Romans. The implication
is that if the Jews had followed Paul’s advice instead of the Pharisees
then perhaps the war could have been avoided.
Romans 13:
1
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is
no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have
been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists authority resists
what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For
rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you wish to
have no fear of the authority? Then do what is good, and you will
receive its approval; 4 for it is God’s servant for your good. But if
you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the authority does not
bear the sword in vain! It is the servant of God to execute wrath on
the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be subject, not only because of
wrath but also because of conscience. 6 For the same reason you also
pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, busy
with this very thing. 7 Pay
to all what is due to them—taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom
revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is
due.
Once again, we
find parallel teachings between the letters of Paul and the Gospel
called Mark that are not attributed to Jesus in Paul’s letters. In the
Gospel called Mark, we have a narrative with Jesus saying something,
and in the letter from Paul, we have Paul saying essentially the same
thing, but he isn’t presenting this advice as a teaching from Jesus.
This is a pattern that we see over and over again in the parallels
between Mark and Paul. But clearly Paul was trying to convince people
of the truth of his teachings and to worship Jesus, so if these were
teachings that came from Jesus, then it would only make sense for Paul
to tell people that these are things that Jesus taught. Instead, what
we see are teachings coming from Paul, which are then put into the
mouth of Jesus by the author of the Gospel called Mark some twenty or
so years later.
- R. G. Price; Deciphering
the Gospels; pp 51-53
As
referenced above, this is just one of over twenty examples of parallels
between the Gospel of Mark and the letters of Paul. Taken together
these parallels show us not that these teachings are likely to be
genuine teachings of Jesus because they are attested to both by Paul
and the Gospel writers, but rather that the teachings come from Paul
himself, not Jesus.
Evaluate the evidence for yourself. Which case do you think is more
strongly supported by the evidence?
|