♦ ficino ♦ Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 I'm not breaking any new ground here, but I share my notes with the group. The story of Jesus' Agony and arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane grows in the telling from Mark through Matthew to Luke and John. Not many overt contradictions, but strange details appear in single gospels. 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. Mark Matthew Luke John 14:32-72 26:36-75 22:35-62 18:1-27 to Mt of Olives ditto ditto across Kidron J + disciples ditto ditto ditto Gethsemane ditto - garden - - - [added: Judas knows Jesus often comes here] J + Peter James John J + Zebedee's sons J went aside - went aside went aside J prays J prays J prays - (I omit the variants in Jesus' prayers) - - angel succours J - - - J sweats blood - J accosts sleeping ditto J accosts sleeping - disciples 3x disciples once [edited to add: In Mark and Matt., J returns, finds "disciples" (Matt.)/"them" (Mark) asleep, accosts Peter. App. the sleepers here are Peter, James and John. J returns two more times to "disciples/them," distinction betw 3 leading disciples and other 8 not clear. In Luke, J withdraws alone, all disciples sleeping. John omits entire Agony.] Judas w/ crowd ditto ditto Judas w/ Roman cohort and guards w/ weapons [and tribune, v. 12] swords, clubs ditto - - from chief priests + from chief priests - from chief priests scribes + elders + elders + Pharisees Judas' kiss ditto ditto - - - J confronts, crowd falls to ground - - - "let these men go" - - J + disciples discuss - using swords 1 bystander strikes ditto ditto , right ear Peter strikes rt ear of ear of HP's slave HP's slave - - - slave's name Malchus - - J heals slave - - J rebukes violence ditto ditto [crowd = chief priests, soldiers of temple, elders] J talks to crowd ditto ditto - J arrested ditto ditto ditto disciples flee ditto - - young man w/ loincloth - - - seized but escapes naked J led to high priest J led to chief priests, J led to HP's house J led to Annas scribes, elders chief priests, elders, - - - scribes gather - - - disciple known to HP gets Peter admitted Peter sits w/ guards ditto Peter sits w/ "them" Peter stands w/ slaves + guards - - - Annas sends J to Caiaphas Remarks. Not much overt contradiction except between Peter sitting vs. standing with guards at the fire; an inerrantist can say he did both at different times. Luke, supposed "historian," is unique w/ two supernatural details plus drops of blood. Matt, Luke, perhaps also John seem embarrassed by Mark's story of young man and omit. John expands: Roman soldiers and tribune, J's overawing the crowd, more detail after arrest John may find it a problem that the disciples were not arrested, for he adds the "let these men go" detail. Luke and John seem to find the flight of the disciples embarrassing and omit it. Only John includes Pharisees. Why? Only Luke has the "chief priests" and elders in the crowd who come after Jesus. Not likely. Why does Peter hang out with the temple guards? That's like hanging out with the police after your leader has been arrested by the police. For Judas to have confidence that Jesus would be at Gethsemane, so as to lead guards there to arrest him, you have to suppose Judas left the group after the decision to go to G. had been made. That does not square with John, where Judas leaves the last supper well before it is over. OT experts: how much of this could have been invented using the OT and other sources of inspiration? Suspicious elements, esp. the lack of concern among the authorities about Jesus' violent followers, and the contrived nature of the arrest. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centauri Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 Interesting points and questions. I found it especially interesting that in John 18:20, Jesus tells three lies to the high priest: John 18:19-20 The high priest then asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his doctrine. Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing. The synoptics reveal all three of these testimony claims to be false. Jesus did not always speak openly, but often spoke to obfuscate and confuse. He did not always teach in the synagogue and temple. He did teach in secret and kept information from the public. John also depicts Jesus being arrested prior to eating the passover meal while the synoptics have him arrested after the passover meal. Matthew (26:31) and Mark (14:27) attempt to tie Jesus to Zech 13:7 as a fulfilling prophecy, which is out of context as usual. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kris Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 Robert Price believes that the gospels are all rewrites of the OT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ ficino ♦ Posted March 26, 2014 Author Share Posted March 26, 2014 Interesting points and questions. I found it especially interesting that in John 18:20, Jesus tells three lies to the high priest: John 18:19-20 The high priest then asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his doctrine. Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing. The synoptics reveal all three of these testimony claims to be false. Jesus did not always speak openly, but often spoke to obfuscate and confuse. He did not always teach in the synagogue and temple. He did teach in secret and kept information from the public. Yes, even in the Gospel of John, Jesus speaks in veiled language; cf. the disciples' relief at 16:29 that "at last you are speaking plainly." John also depicts Jesus being arrested prior to eating the passover meal while the synoptics have him arrested after the passover meal. This I don't see in John. chapter 13 starts with the foot washing "Before the feast of the Passover," and then after it's completed, Jesus "reclined at table once more" (13:17), and they're eating. The disciple whom Jesus loved is reclining next to him "as they ate" (v. 23), and Jesus gives a piece of dipped food to Judas (v. 26). Judas eats it and leaves (v. 30). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ ficino ♦ Posted March 26, 2014 Author Share Posted March 26, 2014 Robert Price believes that the gospels are all rewrites of the OT. Esp. there's the theme of the servant of God who is betrayed by his friend, and then the friend experiences useless regret and hangs himself. That occurs in the story of David betrayed by Ahithophel, who sides w/ Absalom in his revolt against David. Ahithophel is bitter and sees that God is not going to punish David. So Ahithophel “put his house in order and then hanged himself (II Sam 17:23)." A detail is that David goes up the Mount of Olives, sorrowing. This preacher notes the parallel with details of the story of Jesus' Agony at that same spot: http://stonekingdom.org/FMS07/Mar_07_FMS.4.pdf Psalms 41 and 55 talk about betrayal by a friend, and many connect them with the Ahithophel story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ ficino ♦ Posted March 26, 2014 Author Share Posted March 26, 2014 My reason for starting this thread is my underlying question: does this story show so many improbabilities that pure literary invention/adaptation of older material is a better hypothesis that the claim that it has a historical core?Further problems in the story:1. Again, how to account for Judas' knowledge of where to find Jesus? In John, Judas exits the supper long before the rest go to the "Kidron." In the synoptics, he seems to hang around until the decision is made to go there, and we don't see him again until he shows up with the armed "crowd."John seems to recognize the problem, how did Judas know where to find Jesus, because he says Judas knew that Jesus liked to hang out w/ his disciples at the garden (18:2).Fail, obvious fail. We are supposed to believe that Judas leaves the passover meal early. Later, a Roman tribune and "cohort" (however literally that is meant) and temple guards all went w/ Judas to a place where it was only probable, as far as Judas knew, that Jesus might be found? Or we are to believe that Judas took the risk of assuming Jesus would be there? He'd appear in on a plot if he led all these troops on a wild goose chase.On the synoptics' scenario, Judas slips away (unnoticed? at least, unremarked) after the meal, goes to the priests in the middle of the night, time is spent discussing and gathering troops, then he leads these to Gethsemane. I don't know how much distance is supposed to have separated the place of the passover meal from the priests' headquarters or exactly where that was. The Kidron valley isn't far from the temple, and Mt. Olivet is across from that, so the distance to bring Jesus back from the garden to be interrogated still wasn't far. Might be possible. [edited to add: Luke says, 21:37, that "during the days, Jesus was in the temple teaching, but during the nights he would come out and bivouack at the mount called Of Olives." That's different from what John writes in 18:2, sc. "... often Jesus was gathered there with his disciples." Mark 14:1-3 and Matt. 26:1-6, though, have Jesus at a feast in Bethany two days before Passover. Are we to think that Jesus and the disciples left Bethany that night and went back to the Mt of Olives to camp out? The detail in Luke, then, is suspect, perhaps Luke's attempt, different from John's, to explain how Judas could know where to look for Jesus. Dunno.]2. Why such a large crowd to arrest Jesus? The area across the Kidron valley was not populated, so, while there might have been a riot while they brought Jesus back to be interrogated, doesn't seem hugely likely. If they feared Jesus' disciples might be armed, why such a lame job of confronting them? No attempt to surround them or anything. Did they fear J's supernatural powers? [edited to add: thousands would have come to Jerusalem for the passover, so perhaps there were fears that people might be camping out on Mt. of Olives.]Technically, a Roman cohort was a sixth of a legion. Legions often numbered around 3600, though officially they were supposed to be 6000. Some commentators say John is imprecise when he uses the noun "the speira", "the cohort" to describe the detachment. Anyway, it is a sizeable number of soldiers, in addition to the temple guards, and "chiliarchos" has to mean "tribune." Calling it "the" cohort suggests he may mean the detachment at the Antonia fortress (so say commentators; cf. "the whole cohort" gathered around Jesus in Mark 15:16, Matt. 27:27).The behavior of the arresters makes no sense to me, whether there were (John) or were not (synoptics) Romans involved. 3. Judas' kiss. OK, it was dark, so even if Jesus had become known by then, the arresters would have trouble spotting him. But, given their numbers, why not just grab the whole group? Why have Judas go by himself to kiss Jesus while the soldiers/guards hang back? Again, very lame scenario.4. Why were the disciples asleep? The lead-up to the arrest creates an atmosphere of menace, and the synoptics say that at least some of the disciples were armed with swords. If they are expecting an armed confrontation, wouldn't their adrenalin be up? Maybe they "crashed" from their excitement, but still... the sleeping seems unlikely. And ALL of them?5. I have read that the Sanhedrin did not conduct trials at night and not on the Sabbath. Since it's perhaps around 3 AM, where did they suddenly get the "many" who testify falsely under oath (Mark 15:56)? Before that, how did they convene all the chief priests, scribes and elders in the middle of the night, who Mark says sent the guards off with Judas?On the other hand, consider Mark's tendency to triple: three denials, three disciples go off separately w/ Jesus in the garden, three prayers, three times Jesus awakens the sleeping disciples, three groups send the arresters (chief priests, scribes, elders), same three groups hear Jesus' testimony... Looks like a principle of literary design.Are details like Judas' kiss lifted from somewhere in the OT? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kris Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 I have often wondered why the apostles were not arrested along with Jesus. They were certainly touting that he was god-- or the son if god---- and were supportive of that premise. But they just kind of disappear into the backstory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centauri Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 John also depicts Jesus being arrested prior to eating the passover meal while the synoptics have him arrested after the passover meal. This I don't see in John. chapter 13 starts with the foot washing "Before the feast of the Passover," and then after it's completed, Jesus "reclined at table once more" (13:17), and they're eating. The disciple whom Jesus loved is reclining next to him "as they ate" (v. 23), and Jesus gives a piece of dipped food to Judas (v. 26). Judas eats it and leaves (v. 30). In John, Jesus is arrested prior to the passover meal: John 18:28 Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover. John 19:14 And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! I've listened to preachers declare that Jesus was crucified at the exact same time the passover lambs were being killed, which only works if one ignores the synoptics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted March 26, 2014 Super Moderator Share Posted March 26, 2014 4. Why were the disciples asleep? The lead-up to the arrest creates an atmosphere of menace, and the synoptics say that at least some of the disciples were armed with swords. If they are expecting an armed confrontation, wouldn't their adrenalin be up? Maybe they "crashed" from their excitement, but still... the sleeping seems unlikely. And ALL of them? My problem with the slumbering disciples centers around jesus sweating drops of blood. It is physically possible to be under such tremendous strain that the blood vessels surrounding the sweat pores burst open and allow blood to flow freely like sweat. However, usually a person in such a state will also be making a tremendous din of wailing, screaming, or howling like a wounded animal. How could the disciples have slept through such a cacophony? I'm also bothered by the prayer jesus prayed. If the disciples were asleep, who heard him say, "Not my will but thine"? And why would he pray for the father's will to be done, if he and the father were one? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centauri Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 5. I have read that the Sanhedrin did not conduct trials at night and not on the Sabbath. Since it's perhaps around 3 AM, where did they suddenly get the "many" who testify falsely under oath (Mark 15:56)? Before that, how did they convene all the chief priests, scribes and elders in the middle of the night, who Mark says sent the guards off with Judas?This is an article on problems with the trial of Jesus. http://members.efn.org/~iahu/gesing.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ ficino ♦ Posted March 26, 2014 Author Share Posted March 26, 2014 John also depicts Jesus being arrested prior to eating the passover meal while the synoptics have him arrested after the passover meal. This I don't see in John. chapter 13 starts with the foot washing "Before the feast of the Passover," and then after it's completed, Jesus "reclined at table once more" (13:17), and they're eating. The disciple whom Jesus loved is reclining next to him "as they ate" (v. 23), and Jesus gives a piece of dipped food to Judas (v. 26). Judas eats it and leaves (v. 30). In John, Jesus is arrested prior to the passover meal: John 18:28 Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover. John 19:14 And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! I've listened to preachers declare that Jesus was crucified at the exact same time the passover lambs were being killed, which only works if one ignores the synoptics. Is this part of that complicated calendar thing w/ John that one hears about? An issue that always made me nod off. John 13:1 starts out "before the festival of the Passover..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roz Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 And why would he pray for the father's will to be done, if he and the father were one? Because he was sacrificing himself unto himself to save mankind from himself; he will face himself when he defends himself with the perfect righteousness he places upon himself so that he can reconcile mankind to himself. As far as I'm concerned, god can know himself in the biblical context. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centauri Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 John also depicts Jesus being arrested prior to eating the passover meal while the synoptics have him arrested after the passover meal. This I don't see in John. chapter 13 starts with the foot washing "Before the feast of the Passover," and then after it's completed, Jesus "reclined at table once more" (13:17), and they're eating. The disciple whom Jesus loved is reclining next to him "as they ate" (v. 23), and Jesus gives a piece of dipped food to Judas (v. 26). Judas eats it and leaves (v. 30). In John, Jesus is arrested prior to the passover meal: John 18:28 Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover. John 19:14 And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! I've listened to preachers declare that Jesus was crucified at the exact same time the passover lambs were being killed, which only works if one ignores the synoptics. Is this part of that complicated calendar thing w/ John that one hears about? An issue that always made me nod off. John 13:1 starts out "before the festival of the Passover..." There are apologetic attempts made to muddy the water and define the start of passover as either Nisan 14 or 15, depending on what they're trying to prove. The verses I quoted above make it pretty clear that the passover meal had not been eaten. The Last Supper in John is not the passover seder. In the synoptics it is. I would also add (as an aside) that there is no transfiguration on the mountain in John. Jesus prays for glorification in John 17. (Reminds me of Hamlet doing a soliloquy) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ ficino ♦ Posted March 26, 2014 Author Share Posted March 26, 2014 Yes, I just left off reading Leon Morris' long disquisition on this in his comm. on John. According to him, some say it was, some say it wasn't. He inclines to think that the synoptics and John present different scenarios but that Jesus was following a different calendar from that of the temple authorities. That's how he tries to resolve the contradiction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironhorse Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted March 28, 2014 Super Moderator Share Posted March 28, 2014 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. It is also evidence that none are reliable as history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted March 28, 2014 Super Moderator Share Posted March 28, 2014 It is also evidence that the manuscripts were not edited through the centuries to make them all harmonize completely. The oldest bible ever discovered was written around 400CE. In it, the gospel of Mark is 10,000 words shorter than the current version of Mark. Not edited? Try again, TinPony. http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/biblianazar/esp_biblianazar_40.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ ficino ♦ Posted March 28, 2014 Author Share Posted March 28, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blood Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 The questions are only relevant if you assume MML&J were writing out of historical interest. If you don't make that unwarranted assumption, the questions become something akin to, "Why did Penelope endure the suitors for so long when she knew Odysseus was dead?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ ficino ♦ Posted March 29, 2014 Author Share Posted March 29, 2014 The questions are only relevant if you assume MML&J were writing out of historical interest. If you don't make that unwarranted assumption, the questions become something akin to, "Why did Penelope endure the suitors for so long when she knew Odysseus was dead?" I gather you're not interested in participating in the thread, Blood. Too bad. We would have profited from your views on why the Agony/arrest scene is not written out of historical interest. My point in initiating the thread was precisely to call into question the assumption that the writers were recording fact (whatever their intentions!). Edited to add: as we know, the texts of Luke and John as we have them make claims of a certain kind for their historicity, viz. the prologue to Luke and John 20:30 and 21:25. I think it's legitimate to run some test cases for the benefit of those of us who are not yet ready to assume that the writers' interests are not, at least in part, to record historical fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RipVanWinkle Posted March 29, 2014 Share Posted March 29, 2014 "Robert Price believes that the gospels are all rewrites of the OT." kris I have read a couple of books that indicate the NT was created out of the OT. While I don't believe that is completely true it appears to be so to a large extent. I get the feeling that this conclusion is sometimes quite a stretch, it seems to be substantially true. bill 0 Quote MultiQuote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kris Posted March 29, 2014 Share Posted March 29, 2014 Yes---I agree that some OT to NT is a bit of a stretch--but it is interesting!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted March 29, 2014 Super Moderator Share Posted March 29, 2014 Ever notice how Judas gets more evil with each gospel between Mark and John? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ ficino ♦ Posted March 30, 2014 Author Share Posted March 30, 2014 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottsman Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts