Gethsemane - Gospel Disparities

[TheRedneckProfessor]

I have heard it suggested that the reason Judas had to betray Jesus is because he was not that well known. The romans just knew they had a shit disturber to deal with. He wasnt so big however that everyone knew who he was. In any case evidence of his existance is thin anyway. Again likely pointing to a nobody.

A nobody who could feed 5,000 people with a few loaves and fish?  A nobody who could heal the sick, make the lame to walk and the blind to see?  A nobody who could raise the dead?  And turn water into wine?

 

No, something doesn't scan.

[Scottsman]

 

 

I have heard it suggested that the reason Judas had to betray Jesus is because he was not that well known. The romans just knew they had a shit disturber to deal with. He wasnt so big however that everyone knew who he was. In any case evidence of his existance is thin anyway. Again likely pointing to a nobody.

A nobody who could feed 5,000 people with a few loaves and fish? A nobody who could heal the sick, make the lame to walk and the blind to see? A nobody who could raise the dead? And turn water into wine?

 

No, something doesn't scan.

There is no proof of any of that except books written ~300 years later.

 

Realistically, a hippie named Jesus(common name) did exist and was crucified. He needed to be betrayed because he wasnt well known. The rest of the story? Bunk made up by someone trying to start a religion.

 

I always found it comical that christians claim 300 people saw Jesus ascend. "There where eyewitnesses!" they claim. Coupled with the fact that the story was penned centuries later, eyewitnesses dont mean anything.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

I have heard it suggested that the reason Judas had to betray Jesus is because he was not that well known. The romans just knew they had a shit disturber to deal with. He wasnt so big however that everyone knew who he was. In any case evidence of his existance is thin anyway. Again likely pointing to a nobody.

A nobody who could feed 5,000 people with a few loaves and fish? A nobody who could heal the sick, make the lame to walk and the blind to see? A nobody who could raise the dead? And turn water into wine?

 

No, something doesn't scan.

There is no proof of any of that except books written ~300 years later.

 

Realistically, a hippie named Jesus(common name) did exist and was crucified. He needed to be betrayed because he wasnt well known. The rest of the story? Bunk made up by someone trying to start a religion.

 

I always found it comical that christians claim 300 people saw Jesus ascend. "There where eyewitnesses!" they claim. Coupled with the fact that the story was penned centuries later, eyewitnesses dont mean anything.

 

I take your point.

[♦ ficino ♦]

 

 

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are in one book (the New Testament) but they are different books.

 

Each author writes from his own point of view and style.

 

The fact that the four Gospels do not completely harmonize on minor points is

evidence that the stories were not a conspiracy to fabricate a fantastic story.

 

It is also evidence that the manuscripts were not edited through the centuries

to make them all harmonize completely.

... A key question, to name one, is, were Roman soldiers and a fairly high-ranking officer involved?  I can't believe that Roman soldiers and an officer would allow themselves to be led by Judas, then stand around in a group waiting for Judas to pick out the guy they wanted, then let all the followers escape.  They didn't even surround the garden.  The presence of Roman soldiers is a pretty major point, and the discrepancy between the synoptics and John on this point undermines confidence.  

 

Do you think the behavior of the Romans as described is probable, Ironhorse?

 

Then, even when one tries to leach out the many differences betw the 4 gospels, the overall base, or you might want to say, "primitive" story retains many improbabilities.  How likely is it that ALL the disciples would fall asleep?  How likely is it that Jesus would be tried at night, with witnesses rounded up at night, by a Sanhedrin that was not allowed to try cases at night or on the eve of a feast?

 

Do YOU think this story is likely to be factual, Ironhorse?

 

Anything on these questions, Ironhorse?

 

3rd request

[Roz]

Taking bets now:  which will come first, the reply or the 2nd coming? 

[Scottsman]

Taking bets now: which will come first, the reply or the 2nd coming?

I'll take neither for $1200 Trebek.

[srd44]

Big question: if Jesus got in trouble as a political rabble-rouser, as many believers in his historicity suppose, and some of his followers at Gethsemane were armed and fought back, as the story portrays, WHY were they not also arrested?  One can say that the Romans and/or Sanhedrin thought it sufficient to capture only the ringleader, but allowing the others to escape, some armed, seems strange.

Your erudition on this material is quite impressive, and the questions you pose to the texts are very thoughtful. However, as Blood pointed out, and you yourself as well, these types of questions are most significant when historical veracity or verisimilitude is assumed. st the bare minimum. If we're looking at stories whose purposes were to create literary, and even theological responses and intrigues, then we would have to refocus the questions and ask for what literary or theological purpose did X author compose his story as such?

 

Assuming, however, some sort of historical context, at the minimum, the reference in Mark 15:7 has long sparked interest among scholars in connection to the Gesthemane pericope. The text mentions, speaking of Barabbas and others: "they had committed murder in the sedition"---the choice-word there being "the"!

 

Josephus speaks on numerous occasions of the Passover crowd that came into Jerusalem, of the extra Roman guards stationed in or near the Temple, and the repeated seditious occurrences that occurred during this festival of liberation, and the numerous crucifixions that happened during Passover uprisings. (I don't have my Josephus with me, so I'm speaking from memory). Historically speaking then, there is enough context to give plausible credence to a story about yet another seditious uprising and crucifixion on Passover --- indeed perhaps there were many, and others, that were never recorded by any historians. However, this "fact" in itself, if we grant it, still tells us nothing about Jesus in particular, nor the veracity of these stories.

 

So, the zealot hypothesis goes, and leaning somewhat on Mark 15:7, that Jesus was arrested for some sort of seditious act, or at least what appeared to be sedition from the Roman perspective. This would explain his Roman arrest and crucifixion. The Jewish addition could be an apologetic, whose purpose was to transfer balme from the Romans to the Jews.... but already there are too many what-ifs.

 

My particular point being, that both Mark 15:7, lending it some credence, and Josephus’ historical contextualizing of Passover rebellions, seditions fueled by Torah loyalties, martyrdoms, and numerous crucifixions cause us to bring in an array of other questions: What sort of sedition was this? Was Jesus a part of this uprising? Was he perhaps its leader or instigator, or viewed as such by Roman/Herodian authorities? Was his overturning of the tables of the moneychangers somehow a part of this uprising? Is Jesus’ crucifixion then somehow related to this sedition? And if so how? What about the others caught and crucified in this rebellion, are they connected to Jesus? How many Jews were actually crucified on this Passover?

 

It is interesting that Mark 15:7—and perhaps I’m putting too much weight on this—mentions Barabbas and other rebels (τν  στασιατν) who were caught in the uprising—Mark does not feel obliged to explain to his readers what uprising he was speaking about; it was the uprising—yet distances Jesus and his followers from this uprising even through they must have been arrested at the same time! In fact, “the uprising” might even imply the same rebellion!

 

The gospel narratives are about one man, Jesus—understandably. But historically, could this Passover event have brought about a sedition and response by the Roman authorities that ended in the crucifixion of many Jews? Pilate loved to hang these little buggers up, and put their decaying corpses on display.

 

At any point, I don’t think we are able to “find” history or what happened on this Passover, from these stories. We may concede that like other Passovers, Jews rebelled, expressed Torah-loyalties, and were crucified, among whom was this Jesus guy who was popularized and declared messiah—for reasons that are also lost to history—and even later in an act of greater blasphemy declared man-god like Roman emperors were!

 

What the gospels may preserve, are merely stories, apologetics, theological lessons, perspectives, and faith-claims that all veer from what may have actually happened, or not have happened. In other words, there are more questions in this field of study than there are responses, as you well know.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Good to see you back on here, srd44, and thanks for your substantive response.  I hadn't considered Mark 15:7, so I appreciate that reference.  While Luke calls it "a certain sedition that took place in the city," it's interesting to see that Matthew omits reference to "the sedition," and John, after quoting Pilate's invitation to free the "king of the Jews," calls Barabbas a "bandit/brigand," ληιστής i.e. criminal whose MO involves violence - reminds me of the way "freedom fighters" in the news media outside a country can be called "bandits" by the news media of a dictator!  So only Mark acknowledges "the" sedition.

 

With the Criterion of Embarrassment, one could run a long way.  I'm guessing that Mark 15:7 is a verse on which Reza Aslan puts a lot of weight (haven't read him).  It's tantalizing to wonder, why do the other evangelists suppress reference to "the" sedition?  I suppose an off-the-cuff answer might be, they didn't know which "sedition" was meant so simply omitted.  Or, they didn't want their audiences to mix Jesus up with a reputed rebel.  Hmm... 

 

As to Josephus, I haven't gone back to check his account of every Passover sedition, but it's interesting that in the section of the AJ that immediately precedes the TF, Josephus recounts the tumult that arose over Pilate's diversion of Korban money, i.e. $ destined for sacrifices, to aqueduct construction.  Soldiers massacred a number of the rioters with clubs.  Josephus ends 18.62 with the words, "so ended the uprising (στάσις)."  A similar account appears in BJ 2.175, where it is said that Pilate anticipated a "disturbance," ταραχή, but Josephus doesn't call the event a stasis.  Josephus doesn't give enough detail about the genesis of the uprising to reveal whether the ringleaders had killed anyone or whether anyone was subsequently crucified.  Then there is Pilate's massacre of massed Samaritans and his execution of the leaders, AJ 18.86-87.  That's the event that spurred the Samaritan leaders to complain about Pilate to Vitellius, who in turn ordered Pilate to return to Rome.

 

Your observations add even more urgency, in my view, to my question, WHY were the armed accomplices of Jesus, as portrayed in the Gethsemane story, allowed to escape?  

 

I hope that my intent in starting the thread is clear:  I wanted to propose the Agony/Arrest story as a test case for historicity vs. non-historicity of the gospel portrayal.  Your points further weight the scales toward non-historicity, as I see it.

[srd44]

I'm not sure if I'd be comfortable with further weighing all the components of the arrest story to the non-historicity. To be frank, I'd have to claim agnosticism on this one. It is curious though, taking Josephus' accounts---and if I recall the Samaritan event was an eschatological event at Gezrizim?---"the sedition" of Mark, and the mention of armed disciples, especially, and curiously, in Luke's account, does stoke the fire for some sort of armed confrontation, or all-out uprising. Indeed these elements were fundamental in for the zealot hypothesis that Aslan recently reignited. I haven't read his book either.

Breaking it down to its bear minimum---let's say an arrest---if that in itself is not historically plausible, then why would the tradition, the earliest traditions, have invented, we would have to ask, an arrest scene? What literary, rhetorical, or apologetic function wulr it serve, i.e., non-historical purpose.

What makes historical Jesus research so frustrating, and so envigorating, is that there are more questions and more pieces of the puzzle missing that its difficult to say anything with certainty, and this has often lead to people also claiming anything! I'd still like to text the hypothesis that there was in fact a larger crucifixion of Jews here, and that the gospels just focused in on the Jesus story. This approach begs the immediate question: if that were the case why was nothing mentioned of the other Jews crucified? Etc.

Did Jesus, granted he existed, have disciples? I think that's a valid question as well. Obviously 12 has OT influences, but what if there were no disciples, and they themselves were created ex eventu? It's interesting that Mark responds emphatically to a question that must have been prevalent in his time period: Why haven't we, Jews, heard of this Jesus the messiah. Mark's response: because Jesus keep it a secret among his disciples. Disciples here could be part of the created response. I don't know too many questions....

[Blood]

I don't recall any Roman crucifixions during Passover uprisings documented in Josephus. 

[♦ ficino ♦]

At AJ 20.107, Josephus says that it had been the practice of previous procurators (ἐπιτροπεύσαντες) of Judaea to put soldiers at the porticoes of the temple during festivals in case of uprising. He recounts panic and tramplings but not crucifixions. Soon after, a Roman soldier who tears up a copy of the Torah is beheaded at Cumanus' order (20.117). There had been a massacre of Jewish rebels during Passover in BJ 2.10ff and AJ 17.213ff, but I don't see anything there about crucifixions, and it occured during the reign of Archelaus, son of Herod the Great. I might be missing something.

 

srd44's main point stands, though, i.e. that the Romans would try to be ready for unrest at the time of Passover.

 

edited to add: it's interesting that at BJ 2.11 and AJ 17.215, Josephus says that Archelaus sent a cohort (σπεῖρα) of foot soldiers and a tribune (chiliarch). That's just the complement of soldiers that John says accompanied Judas to arrest Jesus. Hmmm... An inerrantist could say, of course, "Well, that's what the Romans always sent to quell incipient riots, so scripture is proved correct once again. Ka-ching."

[srd44]

ficino,

 

This post and our conversation has made me revisit a paper I gave back in 2007, as I was finishing my PhD on Paul --- so this was new material I was doing then. Anyway, after reading the paper, I thought I'd attach it. The first half does a rather nice job of synthesizing the revolts, protests, etc of the 1st century, and then the second half attempts to define the terms of Mark's "the sedition" in light of these 1st century revolts and in reference to the armed arrest scene. Although I'm quite conservative in my historical reconstruction/speculation, I'd probably be even more so now.

 

Revolts, Protests, and Jesus.pdf

 

 

[♦ ficino ♦]

Fascinating. Many thanks for posting your paper!

 

I gather you are now less inclined even than you were in 2007 to speak as though we may be able to detect a historical core in the story?

 

My purpose in starting this thread was not to argue that there could not have been a preacher, Jesus, who was arrested, but to argue that the Agony/Arrest scene as portrayed, and successively embellished, in the gospels doesn't hang together.

 

Just a detail: do we know of Passovers during which the Romans crucified Jews? As stated above, I found references to Passover tumults during which Jews were killed by soldiers but didn't find refs to crucifixions at Passover. I'm only curious about what I may have missed in Josephus.

 

I'm also mulling over whether John's detail about the "speira" and the "chiliarch" is taken from Josephus.

[srd44]

I'm sure there were crucifixions on Passover. The one referrenced in the paper is Pentacost, of the festival of Weeks. The examples in Josephus might come from the Pompey era or some other time. I can't remember were or from what sources, that idea or example comes from. 

[ironhorse]

 

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are in one book (the New Testament) but they are different books.

 

Each author writes from his own point of view and style.

 

The fact that the four Gospels do not completely harmonize on minor points is

evidence that the stories were not a conspiracy to fabricate a fantastic story.

 

It is also evidence that the manuscripts were not edited through the centuries

to make them all harmonize completely. 

Disappointed that this is all you have to offer, Ironhorse.  

 

First, you don't exercise any critical thinking about the nature of the discrepancies.  A key question, to name one, is, were Roman soldiers and a fairly high-ranking officer involved?  I can't believe that Roman soldiers and an officer would allow themselves to be led by Judas, then stand around in a group waiting for Judas to pick out the guy they wanted, then let all the followers escape.  They didn't even surround the garden.  The presence of Roman soldiers is a pretty major point, and the discrepancy between the synoptics and John on this point undermines confidence.  

 

Do you think the behavior of the Romans as described is probable, Ironhorse?

 

Then, even when one tries to leach out the many differences betw the 4 gospels, the overall base, or you might want to say, "primitive" story retains many improbabilities.  How likely is it that ALL the disciples would fall asleep?  How likely is it that Jesus would be tried at night, with witnesses rounded up at night, by a Sanhedrin that was not allowed to try cases at night or on the eve of a feast?

 

Do YOU think this story is likely to be factual, Ironhorse?

 

Your final point is also a disappointment.  From the fact that the gospels do not "all harmonize completely" it does not follow that manuscripts were not edited.  Just look at the critical apparatus at the bottom of the page in a Greek NT, and see what the Prof linked above.

 

Fail.

 

 

"Do you think the behavior of the Romans as described is probable, Ironhorse?"

 

Why would he not let Judas identify Jesus? They were there to arrest Jesus, not the entire group.

 

"They didn't even surround the garden."

 

What? Is this actually a point with you to discredit the narrative? How do you know they didn't were suppose to surround the garden.

 

 

"How likely is it that ALL the disciples would fall asleep?"

 

What is so improbable about this? Are you really that skeptical? 

 

"How likely is it that Jesus would be tried at night, with witnesses rounded up at night, by a Sanhedrin that was not allowed to try cases at night or on the eve of a feast?"

 

The trial was illegal.

 

Do YOU think this story is likely to be factual, Ironhorse?

 

Yes

[mymistake]

 

 

What is so improbable about this? Are you really that skeptical? 

 

 

 

  The Gods, the demons, the devils, the angels, dead people coming back to life, the blind seeing, the lame walking, people with epilepsy getting their demons cast out, heaven, hell, a salvation message that doesn't make sense, a gospel that isn't good news, a son of God who is also a man who is really God but calls himself Son of Man.

 

 

There are a few other improbable things but you get the idea.

[♦ ficino ♦]

 

 

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are in one book (the New Testament) but they are different books.

 

Each author writes from his own point of view and style.

 

The fact that the four Gospels do not completely harmonize on minor points is

evidence that the stories were not a conspiracy to fabricate a fantastic story.

 

It is also evidence that the manuscripts were not edited through the centuries

to make them all harmonize completely.

Disappointed that this is all you have to offer, Ironhorse.  

 

First, you don't exercise any critical thinking about the nature of the discrepancies.  A key question, to name one, is, were Roman soldiers and a fairly high-ranking officer involved?  I can't believe that Roman soldiers and an officer would allow themselves to be led by Judas, then stand around in a group waiting for Judas to pick out the guy they wanted, then let all the followers escape.  They didn't even surround the garden.  The presence of Roman soldiers is a pretty major point, and the discrepancy between the synoptics and John on this point undermines confidence.  

 

Do you think the behavior of the Romans as described is probable, Ironhorse?

 

Then, even when one tries to leach out the many differences betw the 4 gospels, the overall base, or you might want to say, "primitive" story retains many improbabilities.  How likely is it that ALL the disciples would fall asleep?  How likely is it that Jesus would be tried at night, with witnesses rounded up at night, by a Sanhedrin that was not allowed to try cases at night or on the eve of a feast?

 

Do YOU think this story is likely to be factual, Ironhorse?

 

Your final point is also a disappointment.  From the fact that the gospels do not "all harmonize completely" it does not follow that manuscripts were not edited.  Just look at the critical apparatus at the bottom of the page in a Greek NT, and see what the Prof linked above.

 

Fail.

 

 

"Do you think the behavior of the Romans as described is probable, Ironhorse?"

 

Why would he not let Judas identify Jesus? They were there to arrest Jesus, not the entire group.

 

"They didn't even surround the garden."

 

What? Is this actually a point with you to discredit the narrative? How do you know they didn't were suppose to surround the garden.

 

 

"How likely is it that ALL the disciples would fall asleep?"

 

What is so improbable about this? Are you really that skeptical? 

 

"How likely is it that Jesus would be tried at night, with witnesses rounded up at night, by a Sanhedrin that was not allowed to try cases at night or on the eve of a feast?"

 

The trial was illegal.

 

Do YOU think this story is likely to be factual, Ironhorse?

 

Yes

 

You have not given one reason to defend your view. You cannot even write English. Your bolding does not accomplish anything.

 

Jesus' riot or near riot in the Temple courtyard several days earlier could not have been accomplished by him alone; his disciples will have played some role. That area was heavily guarded, especially at Passover. The whole rationale for Roman suspicion of Jesus was that he would lead an insurrection. That they expected armed resistance is obvious from the large size and heavy weaponry of the detachment that came to make the arrest. Letting the disciples escape, when the story requires that the arresters expected armed resistance, makes no sense.

 

There are many other improbable features of the story that your incredulous questions do not address. You have not gone into the matter of the disciples at all. ALL the disciples fell asleep when they had come armed with swords expecting action?

 

I'd invite you to start digging into the passages and put some thought into this rather than toss off incredulous questions as though they are answers.

 

So far, still, Fail.

[ironhorse]

"I'd invite you to start digging into the passages and put some thought into this rather than toss off incredulous questions as though they are answers."

 

I hope you will also read the passages.

[mymistake]

"I'd invite you to start digging into the passages and put some thought into this rather than toss off incredulous questions as though they are answers."

 

I hope you will also read the passages.

 

 

I've read the Bible for more years than you have been alive.  When you were learning how to crawl I was setting aside an hour each day to pray and reading an entire chapter of the Bible daily.

[♦ ficino ♦]

"I'd invite you to start digging into the passages and put some thought into this rather than toss off incredulous questions as though they are answers."

 

I hope you will also read the passages.

I set out a whole table of the passages in the four gospels. It shows how they differ and how details are added in later ones, or taken away - like the young man in a loincloth who ran away naked. He gets suppressed in Matthew, Luke and John.

 

Re Jesus' trial before the Sanhedrin:

 

Your answer, the trial was illegal, actually raises further problems for your own view. Assuming the Sanhedrin did convene, gather witnesses, and meet at night on the eve of Passover, then - WHY? the only plausible motive is fear of impending insurrection. That, presumably, is why they (on this assumption) railroaded Jesus through a phony trial and rushed him off to Pilate to be executed. The theme, he said he was King of the Jews, places Jesus in a Zealot context.

 

So why no apparent attempt to arrest his armed followers as well? We only learn that "they" tried to lay hands on the young man who wore only a loin cloth.

 

One can say, well, once they had the leader, they didn't need to worry about the followers. Such a mentality was Roman? In other insurrections in Galilee, large numbers died.

 

You can't have both the Sanhedrin breaking RELIGIOUS LAW out of fear of revolt AND no concern among them or the Romans for Jesus' armed followers.

[srd44]

"I'd invite you to start digging into the passages and put some thought into this rather than toss off incredulous questions as though they are answers."

 

I hope you will also read the passages.

Your incredulousness and blatant ignorance of and lack of respect for these texts is, quite frankly, appalling. You have deemed more important your beliefs, views, values, apologetics, etc. about these texts than the texts themselves, each on their own terms and the beliefs, views, etc. of each author independently. Your kind labels these texts as sacred, yet in repeated acts of gross and barbaric disingenuousness these texts become mere toys and vehicles to spout your own beliefs. They could be any texts and say anything, because at heart your not interested in what the texts say but only in how the texts can be used to support what is really at stake here—your beliefs. I implore you, for the sake of the texts, put your beliefs aside; put your beliefs about the texts aside; and let the texts speak, each individually, the story they were originally intended and desired to speak. Are you that afraid, skeptical, to give the texts their own voices? For shame.

 

The original OP addressed in textual bravado (i.e., a close, honest, fair, objective, value-free reading of the texts) the inconsistences in the accounts. These are factual data, textual data. If we are to pursue an understanding, objectively—i.e., independent of my beliefs or non-beliefs, your beliefs, ficino’s beliefs or non-beliefs—of the texts, then that means starting with the texts apart from our subjective views about them, and gathering the textual data. What conclusion can we draw from these textual data? is the OP’s point. Indeed, they raise many more questions. For example, all the disciples don’t fall asleep in the other accounts. Why did the author present them all doing such in this particular account? Did he have a point he was trying to make? What purpose did it serve his story? All these questions and their answers are to be sought apart from barbarically disregarding what the text claims and instead imposing our own beliefs, which you are doing. The conversation is about the texts, and what they say AND DON’T SAY. It is not about in vague terms what you believe about the texts, were told to believe about the texts, etc.! Being honest to the texts and the beliefs of each author should be our goal as a culture and mature human species.

 

Having arrived to that point, then we can add the subjective questions. Gee, Luke doesn’t really present the story as I remembered. How do I feel about that? Or, holy shit, Luke believes this; I certainly don’t nor does my church. Where do we go from there? My fear is we will never get here as a human species because some of us are not using, excuse the metaphor, our god-given intellects and spirits, some of us are not being honest to the texts. Hell, not even reading the texts on the text's terms and in the text's historical and literary contexts---not on our terms, the terms of Christian communities, John the pastor's terms, etc.   

 

And further study supports that these inconsistencies are not the result of different perspectives, vantage points of history---the apologetic used by Christians, exceuse me, by those most unfamiliar with the texts, but rather these narrative consistencies, contradictions, contending ideologies and theologies, etc. are often the result of a conscious altering of earlier traditions by later writers! (e.g., Matthew and Luke consciously tell us they have altered the earlier tradition they received from Mark in renarrating certain events and even reshaping key theological differences; John’s Jesus is an attempt to rectify Matthew's all-too-Jewish Jesus for John’s community; James is directed at and against how Pauline Christianity defined the new religion, and practically left out, according to Jesus' brother here, Judaism!). You need to put your ego aside, your personal cherished beliefs aside, and start being honest to the individual authors that wrote these 27 texts.

[♦ ficino ♦]

For example, all the disciples don’t fall asleep in the other accounts. Why did the author present them all doing such in this particular account? Did he have a point he was trying to make? What purpose did it serve his story?

Excellent points above, srd44, and good to point out distinctions among gospels about who is sleeping. I added that to the OP.

 

On Jesus' second visit to the sleeping disciples, Mark says, "They could not keep their eyes open, nor did they know what to say to him." Matthew says only, "they could not keep their eyes open." Again, suppression of a strange detail of Mark's -- strange because, if they were asleep, why are they unsure of what to say to Jesus?

 

The young man in the loin cloth continues to bug me. Morton Smith's theory that Jesus was conducting an initiation into his magical cult, which included sex between initiate and master, always seemed far-fetched to me. Could it be some cryptic allusion to something in the OT or in another writing? If we think the event has a historical core, then we have a lot of explaining to do!

[TheRedneckProfessor]

"How likely is it that ALL the disciples would fall asleep?"

 

What is so improbable about this? Are you really that skeptical? 

jesus was in a state of such emotional despair that the blood vessels surrounding his sweat glands actually burst open allowing him to sweat drops of blood, but he somehow stayed quiet enough to allow the disciples to sleep through it all?  Yes, that is highly improbable, in my opinion.

[srd44]

 

For example, all the disciples don’t fall asleep in the other accounts. Why did the author present them all doing such in this particular account? Did he have a point he was trying to make? What purpose did it serve his story?

Excellent points above, srd44, and good to point out distinctions among gospels about who is sleeping. I added that to the OP.

 

On Jesus' second visit to the sleeping disciples, Mark says, "They could not keep their eyes open, nor did they know what to say to him." Matthew says only, "they could not keep their eyes open." Again, suppression of a strange detail of Mark's -- strange because, if they were asleep, why are they unsure of what to say to Jesus?

 

The young man in the loin cloth continues to bug me. Morton Smith's theory that Jesus was conducting an initiation into his magical cult, which included sex between initiate and master, always seemed far-fetched to me. Could it be some cryptic allusion to something in the OT or in another writing? If we think the event has a historical core, then we have a lot of explaining to do!

 

Ficino,

 

I’d initially have to draw these conclusions/observations:

 

Mark’s account of Peter, James, and John falling asleep 3x is certainly a literary invention, topos, made for a purpose. The task is to find the purpose. What seems to be accentuated here is slumberness or sleeping when “the hour has come.” It has been argued by a handful of scholars, and I like the thesis, that the gospels served a performative function in the communities of the early church and that in the large, the gospel writers were writing for their specific communities. Given Mark’s eschatology elsewhere (shared by Matthew, but not in Luke or John), the message to Mark’s community is “Watch!” — the same message that ends Mark’s apocalyptic description of, supposedly, the events of 70 AD, in chapter 13: "Watch!", i.e., stay alert! Presenting the theme 3 times accentuates the urgence to Watch and Wait for Jesus’ coming. I think one of the goals of Mark’s gospel was to reassure his community that Jesus was the messiah, the coming-back messiah, in the face of growing doubt. (I know there’s passages to support this but they’re not at my finger tip), and the appearence of other messiahs from 40-66 AD (a la Josephus).

 

Matthew pretty much follows Mark and keeps the eschatological “Watch!” “The hour is at hand”—again a message to his community since both Mark’s and Matthew’s community believed Jesus was coming SOON: “There are those among you who will not taste death, etc...” —also a message to the disciples. However, in performance, Jesus speaks right to Matthew’s community, much like the author of Deuteronomy has Moses address his 7th c. BCE audience: "You!"

 

Luke, where all the disciples fall asleep, completely rewrites the whole story. No, thrice occurrence, no eschatological “Watch!” or “the Hour as at hand!” One of the reasons scholars date Luke later is because of its absent eschatology. Luke apparently understood the coming kingdom as already here, in the church! Anyway, for Luke the story becomes about Jesus, and the disciples—a stand-in for a slumbersome audience—are no longer referenced with any importance. It’s a different story now, with a different message.  

 

John is even more radical in rewriting the tradition. He completely replaces Jesus’ Gesthemane prayer with a long diatribe of prayers (Jn 17), and then the march over the Kidron and the army is there waiting for Jesus and he is arrested—no Gesthemane prayer scene at all in John!

 

As far as Mark’s naked lad, I’m not sure what to make of it. I know there’s been attempts to see an allusion to the lad in the empty tomb?? I’ve often wondered if its an historical reference to someone or something that Mark’s community would have been familiar with? Not sure here.

[♦ ficino ♦]

As far as Mark’s naked lad, I’m not sure what to make of it. I know there’s been attempts to see an allusion to the lad in the empty tomb?? I’ve often wondered if its an historical reference to someone or something that Mark’s community would have been familiar with? Not sure here.

Do you think Mark's community would know which "stasis" was "the stasis" mentioned in 15:7, which you pointed out a few days ago?

 

I've heard people say that Mark's community may have been in Rome - not sure why. His geographical errors point to somewhere outside Palestine as his own location, unless they are some sort of literary reworking.