According to Richard Bauckham’s Jesus and the Eyewitnesses on page 236-37, the Gospel of Thomas reveals its dependence on the gospels of Mark and Matthew. He quotes Saying 13:
Jesus said to his disciples, “Compare me to something and tell me what I am like.”
Simon Peter said to him, “You are like a just messenger.”
Matthew said to him, “You are like a wise philosopher.”
Thomas said to him, “Teacher, my mouth is utterly unable to say what you are like.”
Jesus said, “I am not your teacher. Because you have drunk, you have become intoxicated from the bubbling spring that I have tended.”
And he took him, and withdrew, and spoke three sayings to him. When Thomas came back to his friends they asked him, “What did Jesus say to you?”
Thomas said to them, “If I tell you one of the sayings he spoke to me, you will pick up rocks and stone me, and fire will come from the rocks and devour you.”
On the one hand, Thomas may just be reworking an oral tradition of Peter’s dramatic confession of Christ which was also included and redacted in various ways in the Synoptics. But why refer to a more obscure disciple like Matthew? Bauckham argues that Peter represents the Gospel of Mark (Mark as Peter’s interpreter) and Matthew the Gospel of Matthew and Thomas is declaring its own superior insight over these two gospels. What do you think?
A number of bloggers have mentioned Mark Goodacre’s forthcoming Thomas and the Gospels: The Case For Thomas’s Familiarity with the Synoptics(see here, here, here, here, here) and I am excited for it as well. I have to confess that I am uncertain how Thomas fits as a piece in the puzzle of Christian origins. The decision we make on the independence or dependence of Thomas from the Synoptic tradition has far-reaching implications. To give a few examples:
How Many Multiply attested sources for the Historical Jesus:
Multiple Attestation is the criterion where is a saying or event is attested in more than one independent source, than it must belong to an earlier tradition that precedes both sources and may go back to a very early memory of Jesus. For instance, in the logion about taxes, Thomas either independently attests to an oral variant of a saying of Jesus from Mark or is just dependent on the Synoptic tradition:
They showed Jesus a gold coin and said to him, “The Roman emperor’s people demand taxes from us.” He said to them, “Give the emperor what belongs to the emperor, give God what belongs to God, and give me what is mine.” (Thomas saying 100)
Then they sent to him some Pharisees and some Herodians to trap him in what he said. 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?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. And the brought one. Then he said to them, Whose head is this, and whose title?’ They answered, ‘The emperor’s.’ Jesus said to them, ‘Give to the emperor the things that are the emperor the things that are the emperor’s, and to God the things that are God’s.’ (Mark 12:13-17 NRSV)
Were the Earliest Jesus Traditions Non-Eschatological:
The Gospel of Thomas as it stands rejects a future-oriented apocalyptic eschatology. Take a look at Thomas sayings 3, 18, 37, 51, etc. This is in sharp contrast to the gospel of Mark with its message of the coming of the kingdom of God and warnings of tribulation before the imminent coming of the Son of Man in the eschatological discourse of Mark 13. So which gospel better reflects the earliest traditions? A number of scholars argue that Thomas multiply attests sayings in Kloppenborg’s first hypothetical layer of Q (Q1, a wisdom document) to suggest the earliest traditions were non-eschatological and reflect the social radicalism of the earliest Jesus movement (cf. Stephen Patterson, The Fifth Gospel, pp 46-48). Alternatively, April Deconick has argued that Thomas was a rolling corpus where sayings were continually added over a period of time reflecting different stages of development (ca 50-120 CE) and the earliest kernel Thomas was characterized by imminent apocalyptic expectation (see Recovering the Original Gospel of Thomasand The Original Gospel of Thomas in Translation; cf. the RBL reviews by Patterson and Witetschek and the blog response by Deconick). However, if Thomas is dependent on the Synoptic tradition, while a few of its sayings may perhaps be early and independent, it would be largely a secondary development in reaction to the problem of the delay of the parousia as expected in the earliest sources (Paul, Q as a whole, Mark).
How Diverse Was Earliest Christianity
After graduating from a Christian liberal arts college my model of diversity was along the lines of James Dunn Unity and Diversity in the New Testament- the NT gives evidence of different views on christology, soteriology, eschatology, ecclesiology or Torah but the unity lies in the identification of the man Jesus as the exalted Lord which marks the boundary against competing Christianities. But my MA advisor was a contributor on the Ancient Myths and Modern Theories of Christian Origins seminar (Redescribing Christian Origins) which used an early literary-stratified Q and Gospel of Thomas to get outside the canonical picture of Christian origins (e.g., Luke-Acts, Eusebius) and redescribe the Jesus groups picturing Jesus as founding sage or Christ cults embracing the Pauline kerygma as experiments in “mythmaking and social formation.” I am not in principle opposed to the idea of some individuals or groups just interested in sayings traditions (wisdom collections, parables, pronouncement stories, etc) and possibly more diversity than appears in surviving NT texts (consider allusions to opposing groups in the epistles or letters to the churches in Revelation, the reference in Mark to an alien exorcist outside the circle of the Twelve, the controversy with Apollos in 1 Corinthians or how Acts describes Apollos preaching Jesus with having only heard of the baptism of John, etc.), though I think despite their great differences the Jerusalem Pillars and Paul at least agreed on a creed like 1 Cor 15:3-5, whatever other groups who may or may not have existed thought on this matter. However, if Goodacre is right on the dependance of Thomas on Synoptics (and of Luke on Matthew), the grounds for positing much greater diversity due to Q and Thomas disappears.
In the biblioblogosphere we are fortunate to have a number of experts on the Gospel of Thomas such as Mark Goodacre, April Deconick, Christopher Skinner, Judy Redman and others, so I can only look forward to a scholarly smackdown on the Gospel of Thomas in the summer when this book comes out
One way to ask what the author of Luke-Acts thought of the gospel of Mark would be to look carefully at the Lukan prologue in 1:1-4. The question might be how did Luke compare to the “many” who had already attempted or undertaken to write an account, especially with Luke’s stated goal to write for his patron Theophilus in order. Another route might be similar to Sim’s study of Matthew’s redaction of Mark. On this latter point, I want to look at what has come to be known as the Great Lukan Omission of Mark 6:45-8:26. Basically, after Jesus feeds the five thousand (Luke 9:10-17), Luke goes straight into Jesus’ famous question “Who do you say that I am” with Peter’s climatic confession but omits the reference to Caesarea Philippi (Luke 9:18-20). Why do you think Luke may have missed this entire section of Mark?
An argument for the Griesbach hypothesis that Mark was intended to conflate Matthew and Luke?
There was a proto-Mark without Mark 6:45-8:26 that was used by Luke, while a later redactor added this section to canonical Mark?
This section was accidently skipped over due to the phenomenon of homeoleuton (the section begins with them going to and ends with them leaving “Bethsaida”)?
Luke had a defective copy of Mark that was accidently missing this section?
Luke wanted to reduce doublets (this section has a second feeding narrative and second sea miracle)?
Luke chose to restrict Jesus’ mission to Jews in Galilee (rather than Tyre, Sidon and the Decapolis)?
Luke found some features offensive such as the comparison of the non-Jewish Syrophoenician woman to a dog, the use of saliva to heal the deaf/mute man and the blind man, the harsh depiction of the ignorance of the disciples (their hearts are hardened at 6:52 in response to the Sea miracle and at 8:17 in response to Jesus remark on the yeast of the Pharisees and Herod) or some obscure teachings (e.g. Mk 7:1-23 involves some pretty technical discussion of Jewish halakhah and purity laws in responding to the objection about eating with unwashed hands)?
Luke wanted to omit any discussion of clean and unclean (Mark 7) until Peter’s vision in Acts 10?
Other explanations?
For an introduction to this issue one can check out the options laid out in commentaries such as Joseph Fitzmyer’s Luke I-IX for Anchor Bible (for commentaries available on google preview that comment on the issue see R.H. Stein, LT Johnson) or for various online views from scholars or laypersons at Crosstalk: Historical Jesus and Xtian Origins, Synoptic L Archive or Bernard’s (frequent commentor here) website.
I have finally gotten around to reading the article by David C. Sim, “Matthew’s Use of Mark: Did Matthew Intend to Supplement or to Replace His Primary Source?” NTS 57 (2011): 176 – 192 (thanks to Ed Babinsky for mentioning the article in my post here and emailing it to me a while back). While aspects of Sim’s study may be debated (was Mark a Paulinist and was Matthew anti-Pauline?), overall I found it a persuasive case that by reproducing most of Mark’s content while cleaning up Mark’s grammar and style, revising and enlarging it with a wealth of new material from other sources (the double tradition ["Q"], special Matthean materials) and editing out what has become theologically problematic the evangelist behind Matthew intended to replace Mark’s gospel (see especially page 178-181). Sim writes (p. 183),
Why would he want his community to read of the healing of the blind man at Bethsaida in Mark 8:22-26 when he himself thought it unworthy of inclusion? Why would he be content to have his readers learn that Jesus’ power was limited in Mark 6:5 when he had rewritten that Marcan text in Matt 13:58 so as not to convey that impression? Why would he want his intended readers to learn from Mark 3:19b-21 that the family of Jesus’ believed he was demon-possessed after he himself deemed it so offensive that he took considerable pains to ensure that it did not appear in his parallel account? Why would Matthew think it desirable for his community to be exposed to Mark’s statment in Mark 7:19b that Jesus declared all foods clean when he himself clearly opposed this view and omitted the offending words, and elsewhere depicted Jesus as a Law-observant Jew? Finally, why would the evangelist desire that his readers continue to read Mark when it offered them so little interms of their immediate and pressing needs, such as their conflict with Formative Judaism?
[*for Sim Mk 8:22-26 was omitted due to the use of spittle as a healing agent, the conflict with formative Judaism is the intensification of polemic against scribes & Pharisees in Matt 23, and Mk 7:19b points to Mark as a Paulinist but Sim doesn't deal with Crossley's reinterpretation of all foods already permitted by Torah as clean i.e. unwashed hands can't render eater unclean]
Sim points out that Matthew’s attitude conforms with Luke’s slightly critical view of his sources in the prologue (Lk 1:1-4), John’s working with a completely different tradition from Mark, and the mixed reception of Mark in the 2nd century (pp. 188-92). The question is, if the apostle Peter had not been attached to Mark in patristic tradition, would we be reading Mark today?
Mark Goodacre (Mark G.) has a post on a forthcoming work criticizing the criteria in the quest for the historical Jesus (HJ), developed to respond to form critical skepticism of how to distinguish between what goes back to HJ, to the “situation in life” of the early churches and to the evangelist’s redaction. In my HJ posts I have been dependent on the criteria but it is clear it can be used to support completely opposite judgements. I like much of the recent work on memory and how it captures the gist of how Jesus was widely remembered as a sage, apocalyptic prophet or figure of some significance in the eschatological scenario but if we want to weigh between differing & conflicting memories in our varied sources and make specific judgments (did the temple incident happen, did Jesus speak of the apocalyptic Son of Man) then some sort of criteria is unavoidable and I worry some conservative scholarship study of eyewitnesses or oral tradition/social memory is to bypass having to make an explicit judgment that something in the tradition is secondary or not historical (note this concern does NOT apply to Mark G. nor Dale Alison, but some others it may apply). So lets look at the criteria:
Double Dissimilarity: this one tries to reach an assured minimum (if it can’t be attributed to other Jews or Christians it must have be the HJ), but I agree it is a bad criterion. The HJ appears in a vacuum neither influencd by his Jewish context or influencing his followers. It assumes we know enough about Second Temple Judaism(s) or Christianities to ever declare something unparalleled and the criterion was born in a German liberal Protestant context which wanted to claim Jesus as unique and superior visa-vie Judaism. Instead, it might be useful looking for something relatively distinctive (e.g., son of man is characteristically on Jesus lips but is rare outside the gospels or for others to refer to Jesus as son of man), but also understandable in both a Jewish context and explains the rise of early Christian views.
Multiple attestation: This criterion can’t prove something historical, but what it can show is that if source X and source Y independently attest event Z than the memory of Z must be earlier than both X and Y. If seems to me a standard that if something is in multiple early, independent sources, it has a greater chance of reflecting how an event was widely remembered from early on and greater likelihood of being historical (NOT to say a singly-attested event is not historical). Mark G. will critique this criterion and, if his view of the literary relationships of the Gospels is correct, it does shrink the pool of independent sources (i.e. Matthew/Luke dependent on Mark, Luke dependent on Matthew so no “Q” source, John dependent on Mark, Thomas dependent on Synoptic tradition = but perhaps some special sources in Matt/Luke/John/Thomas were independent of Mark as well as Paul to be useful for multiple attestation?). This is why the Synoptic Problem is important!
Embarrassment: I discussed this with Mark G. in the comments here (see my example of John’s baptism and the responses) as it seems to me that historians should look for counter-voices that the evangelists may try to suppress, or if an event is too well known in the tradition to be denied then the efforts of damage control (e.g., each stressing Jesus’ superiority to the Baptist). Of course, this criterion must be used with caution as what embarrasses a later theologian may not be so embarrassing to an earlier one (e.g. Jesus cry “why have you forsaken me” on the cross did not embarrass Mark/Matthew as it fits the scriptural background of the suffering righteous man [cf. Psalms 22], but was omitted by Luke for the trusting “into your hands I commit my spirit”) and I am comfortable with how Mark G. shifts the terminology to traditions to “go against the grain” and therefore are at least earlier than the evangelists themselves.
Aramaic: this one may be used as both a positive and negative criterion to see if a saying in the Greek Gospels can be reasonable reconstructed back into Aramaic and if there are good reasons to do so (e.g., puzzles in the Greek text best explained by positing an Aramaic original rather than other literary explanations). Of course, since Jesus’ Jewish followers spoke Aramaic this has no guarantee of going back to Jesus without the use of other criteria, but it means that a tradition about Jesus circulated very early in a Jewish Aramaic speaking milieu and may go back to HJ.
Coherence: depends on what other sayings or deeds the scholar thinks passes the other criteria, so is pretty subjective.
There are a few other criteria used (cf. John Kloppenborg’s discussion). If still seen as deficient, perhaps we can propose new criteria? Finally, to help students from different faith backgrounds come to terms with the study of the HJ, I like to distinguish between Jesus and the HJ. We do not have access to the former, unless we invent a time machine, apart from the memories of his followers. The HJ is a scholarly reconstruction built on arguments about probability and evidence, but if a saying/deed doesn’t pass the criteria does not necessarily mean it didn’t happen (just that it cannot be demonstrated using the current tools of the trade, though that may be contested in the future) or that the HJ represents all that Jesus in all his complexity was (and for Christian worshippers, who he is). What do you think of the criteria?
Clip from movie on Mark (I think this project was abandoned) and passage from Mk 13:25-26. Sadly, Mark is the only gospel of the 4 not to get the movie treatment
Rudolf Bultmann (Theology of the New Testament, 30) spoke of 3 types of Son of Man sayings: present ministry (Mk 2:10, 28), dying/rising (Mk 8:31; 9:31; 10:33-34) and future coming (Mk 13:26; 14:62). Against Wright’s view on the Son of Man’s ascent to Heaven and vindication at the fall of the Temple in 70 CE, I have argued for the traditional reading of his descent at the end of the age here (Mark uses the participle form of erchomai [coming], but Matthew seems to interpret it this way by substituting the technical term parousia in 24:3, 27, 37, 39). Further, regardless of the Aramaic idiom possibly underlying it, it seems to me that for Mark the Son of (the) Man has become a christological title (ho huios tou anthropou, a gender neutral translation might be “The Human One”) and the Danielic background primary though some contest this (cf. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 290-306 argues it was not a title but the double articular constructionbhas the emphatic force designating this particular human [i.e. Jesus] and Daniel only part of the background of divine theophany imagery). Finally, if we are to ask how a first century reader like Mark read Daniel 7, I think the evangelist updated the oracle to address his time so the end is at hand, the current oppressor is Rome and Jesus is the son of man representing the saints of Israel who will triumph over the beast. Repeated references to suffering and persecutions (Mk 4:17; 8:34-38; 10:30b, 38; 13:9-13) and injunctions to self-denial and taking up the cross may be the cost of following Jesus in the present evil age, but Mark reassures the reader of the good news that the kingdom (1:15; 9:1) ruled over by the Human One will soon come in full power. But that is Mark, so what of the historical Jesus?
The Positive Evidence :
1. The future sayings are multiply attested all over the tradition (Ehrman, Apocalyptic Prophet, 146): Mark (13:26, 14:62), Q (Matt 24:27, 37-39/Luke 17:24, 26-27, 30), M (Matt 13:40-43), L (Luke 21:34-36), Paul (1 Thess 4:16) and possibly John (1:51). Ehrman follows the older scholarly line that the historical Jesus’ references to the Son of Man in the 3rd person is to a future apocalyptic judge distinct from himself, while Dale Allison has changed his earlier opinion from Millenial Prophet on the collective interpretation of the son of man as Jesus and his followers as the vindicated saints to the son of man as Jesus’ heavenly double or celestial alter ego (e.g., Enoch identified with the heavenly son of man in 1 Enoch 71:14, the church who believes they are being visited by Peter’s “angel” in Acts 12:12-15, Judas as the human alter ego of the demon Iadoboth in the Gospel of Judas, the angel Michael as the angelic double of Joseph in Joseph and Asenath, etc) (cf. Constructing Jesus, 292-303).
2. Double dissimilarity: the one like a son of man in Daniel has been interpreted as representing the saints of Israel (Casey), an angelic representative of Israel (Collins) or a messianic figure (Horbury). Dan 7 seems to have influence the Similitudes of Enoch (1 Enoch 37-71, that son of man identified as Enoch in 71:14) and the man from the sea in 4 Ezra 13, but there are issues of dating the Similitudes and textual uncertainties in the post-70 work 4 Ezra. However, the biggest argument against it as an established title in Second Temple Judaism is that it is never a title the Son of Man (even Revelation has “one like a son of man”) and no one is shocked at the use of Son of Man itself as a self-referent as one might expect if it was a known exalted title. In Christian literature, it is far most often on Jesus’ lips and quickly replaced by terms like Lord (kyrios) or Son of God, appearing outside the gospels only in Acts 7:56, Heb 2:6, Rev 1:13 & 14:14. However, there are major problems with this criteria as it has Jesus operate in a cultural vacuum not influenced by his Jewish context (it fits a context where scholars were trying to prove Jesus`uniqueness and superiority visa-vie Judaism) nor influencing later followers, assumes we know enough about first-century Judaism to declare something unparalleled (what if DeaneGalbraith is right on the dating and influence of the Similitudes and Enochic Judaism?) and neglects the evangelists own theologies. Yet the tradition consistently remember this as a distinctive usage of Jesus while it had no meaning for Gentile audiences so it drops out.
3. Embarrassment: the Son of Man or kingdom would come before the completed ministry to Israel (Matt 10:23), before they all tasted death (Mark 9:1) or soon after Romans destroyed the temple (Mark 13:30) may have embarrassed later Christians. Already in Mark a saying one such saying (9:1) may perhaps be slightly reinterpreted as at least partially fulfilled in the transfiguration six days later (9:2).
4. Coherence: If fits with Jesus is an apocalyptic prophet. And Jesus did not issue a call to take up arms yet was executed as a would-be messianic pretender, might the expectation to be enthroned as Son of Man by divine power in the age to come explain some of this tension?
The Negative Evidence
1. Many see the Greek title as an attempt to translate the Aramaic bar (e)nash(a) which was an idiomatic expression that could be rendered “human being”, “someone”, “one”, etc. For Vermes it is simply a circumlocution for “I” and that might fit a saying such as Mk 2:10 “the Son of Man (“I”) has authority to forgive sins” (note Matt 9:8 where God has given such authority to humans). Casey make a strong case that it has a general level of meaning about humanity in general, though with particular reference to the speaker (RBL reviews here and here). This seems to make good sense of Mk 2:27-28 (and note that Matthew and Luke omit the generalizing reference of Mk 2:27) that “the Sabbath was made for [the son of] man, not [the son of] man for the Sabbath, therefore the son of man is Lord of the Sabbath.” The fact that this might be an ordinary idiomatic usage along with the fact that there was no pre-christian evidence for the Son of Man as a title may indicate this was a later christological development among Greek speaking Christians who didn’t understand the Aramaic idiom, though perhaps one way out might be with Hooker to see Jesus as using the general level of meaning yet also embracing the role of the one like a son of man who suffers under the beast but receives divine vindication?
2. The Son of Man produced from early Christian exegesis: Psalm 110 (the second Lord sitting at the right hand now understood as Jesus exaltation to heaven) combined with Daniel 7:13 for ascension and then with Zechariah 12:10 (looking on one whom they pierced) to make the parousia (Perrin, Rediscovering the Teachings of Jesus, 180-182). Some see this as an obvious reference to the later Christian belief in the second coming to fully inaugurate the kingdom, which was demanded when the Christians believed that Jesus’ resurrection/exalted to heaven vindicated their belief in him as the annointed messiah and yet the expected messianic kingdom had not yet materialized.
3. Scholars who accept the literary stratification of Q where apocalyptic Son of Man sayings are in a later stratum (Q2) when the Q people now declare apocalyptic judgment on this generation for rejecting their message in Q1. Crossan also makes the interesting argument that the theme may be multiply attested, but in 18 complexes of apocalyptic Son of Man sayings the phrase itself is not multiply attested (phrase “son of man” itself only multiply attested in “foxes have holes” – Thomas 86, Matt 8:20/Luke 9:58) (Crossan, Historical Jesus, 238-256).
So do you think the coming Son of Man sayings go back to Jesus? For more resources:
Allison, Dale. Jesus of Nazareth: Millenarian Prophet. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998; Constructing Jesus: Memory, Imagination, and History. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010.
Bird, Michael. Are You the One Who is to Come? The Historical Jesus and the Messianic Question. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2009.
Casey, Maurice. The Solution to the Son of Man Problem. London: T&T Clark, 2007; Jesus of Nazareth. London and New York: T&T Clark International, 2010.
Collins, John J. ”The Son of Man in First-Century Judaism” NTS 38 (1992): 448-466.
Crossan, John Dominic. The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1991.
Erhman, Bart. Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 1999.
Hooker, Morna. The Son of Man in Mark. London: SPCK, 1967.
Horbury, William. Jewish Messianism and the Cult of the Christ. SCM Press, 1998.
Marshall, I.H. “Son of Man” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Edited by Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight and I. Howard Marshall; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1992.
Perriman, Andrew. The Coming of the Son of Man: New Testament Eschatology for an Emerging Church. Paternoster, 2006.
Perrin, Norman. Rediscovering the Teachings of Jesus. London: SCM, 1967.
Vermes, Geza. The Authentic Gospel of Jesus. London: Penguin Books, 2003.
Witherington, Ben. Jesus, Paul and the End of the World. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1992.
Wright, N.T. Jesus and the Victory of God. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996
Most of these scenes come from the Gospel of John film with the title role by Lost actor Henry Ian Cusick; the main clue is that only in John’s Gospel does Jesus have a whip (Jn 2:15)
In a earlier post I argued the best interpretation of Mk 11:15-17 is Jesus protested the exploitive abuses of the leadership of the Temple and predicted its demise. This fits overturning the tables of money changers and those who sold pigeons (the poor offering), calling the temple a “robber’s den”, prophetic symbolic actions like overturning tables and cursing the fig tree, and criticisms of power and wealth throughout the gospel (e.g., Mk 12:38-13:2 scribes devour widows’ houses followed by exemplary widow who puts her last coins in the treasury). But there are other interpretations: Jesus opposed sacrifice (some interpret the last supper as an alternative to the temple cult, but why is Mark silent on Jesus starting a counter-temple movement and why in Mark 1:44 did Jesus instruct the healed Leper to make the offer for his cleansing), Jesus was offended by selling within the sacred space of the Temple itself (this may have been a recent innovation and may work with John 2:16 complaint about turning the Father’s house into a market, but does this explain “den of robbers” and did not selling animals to pilgrims travelling long distance a convenience and enable the cult to function), Jesus protested the exclusion of Gentiles (this may work with “house of prayer for all nations” but Mark makes little of Jesus in the Court of the Gentiles which would be crowded with Jewish pilgrims for Passover) or Jesus opposed revolutionary violence (this may work if 11:17 λῃστής translated “bandits” cf. Josephus, but it is a scriptural quotation).
But can this be attributed to the historical Jesus? A wide consensus of scholars argue its authenticity, from Crossan to Casey to Sanders to Wright, though with differing interpretations. However, a few challenge its historicity. Burton Mack writes, “Mark’s fiction of an anti-temple messiahship (a contradiction in terms) could have worked only after the temple had already been destroyed” (Myth of Innocence, 282). Paula Fredriksen agrees that the Temple destruction fits well with literary themes of Mark (and relying on Sanders dismisses Mk 11:17 as a later implausible interpretation), that Paul (pre-70) is unaware of a prediction against the temple and that the size of the outer court & density of pilgrim crowds would swallow up Jesus’ gesture (see “Gospel Chronologies, the Scene in the Temple, and the Crucifixion of Jesus”).
But there is a positive case to be made. First, that Jesus made some sort of threat against the Temple or remembered that way seems to be abundantly multiply attested. However, important to note that Jesus’ words in Mark 11:17 and Synoptic parallels are singly attestesd as John 2:16 ascribes to Jesus another sentiment, leading to contrary judgements on the historicity of Mark 11:17 - “He did not wish to purify the temple, either of dishonest trading or of trading in contrast to ‘pure’ worship. Nor was he opposed to the temple sacrifices which God commanded Israel. He intended, rather, to indicate that the end was at hand and the temple would be destroyed, so that the new and perfect temple might arise.” (Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 75) or “… Jesus criticism of the financial and trading arrangements in the Temple was consistent with his rejection of oaths by the Temple, with his criticism of the Korban system, of tithing mint, dill and cumin, and of the observance of additional purity laws concerning vessels full from the proceeds of wealth acquired by the rich from the poor” (Maurice Casey, Jesus of Nazareth, 415). Second, there may be a hint of embarrassment about the action, as there is the recurring mention that Jesus made some sort of prediction of the temple’s destruction and rebuilding in three days, which is attributed to false witnesses in Mark and allegorized in John (could the historical Jesus originally predicted the eschatological destruction and restoration of the Temple but that the latter part was suppressed by the evangelists?). Third, this event can be understood in the context of Second Temple Judaism(s) and there are Jewish parallels (see CA Evans articles here and here). It is also a plausible link to the events leading to Jesus’ crucifixion as a potential political threat. Anyways, here are all the passages and the reader can weigh the arguments.
And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who were selling and those who were buying in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold doves; and he would not allow anyone to carry anything through the temple. He was teaching and saying, ‘Is it not written, “My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations”? But you have made it a den of robbers.’ (Mk 11:15-17)
Some stood up and gave false testimony against him, saying, ‘We heard him say, “I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.” But even on this point their testimony did not agree. (Mk 14:57-59, see also 15:29)
See, your house is left to you, desolate. (Matt 23:38/Luke 13:35= Q?)
In the temple he found people selling cattle, sheep, and doves, and the money-changers seated at their tables. Making a whip of cords, he drove all of them out of the temple, both the sheep and the cattle. He also poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables. He told those who were selling the doves, ‘Take these things out of here! Stop making my Father’s house a market-place!’… Jesus answered them, ‘Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.’ The Jews then said, ‘This temple has been under construction for forty-six years, and will you raise it up in three days?’ But he was speaking of the temple of his body (Jn 2:14-21)
“This man [Stephen] never ceases to speak words against this holy place and the law; for we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place, and will change the customs which Moses delivered to us.” (Acts 6:13-14)
Jesus said, “I will destroy [this] house, and no one will be able to build it [...].” (Thomas, 71)
Paul: ”They are Israelites, and to them belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises” (Rom 9:4), ”Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you?” (1 Cor 3:16; 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16; cf. Eph 2:21-22, an implicit critique of the old temple?), “Let no one deceive you in any way; for that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God” (2 Thess 2:3-4, an allusion to Mark 13:14? But was Mk 13:14 itself influenced by the Caligula crisis and the authorship of 2 Thessalonians is debated).
Over at the Facebook group for the Sheffield Biblical Studies, a certain individual who may not have been aware of what is entailed by the academic study of biblical literature left this fun message on the wall:
2012 is here. Signs suggest a highly destructive future. Good News is Light or Knowledge of Life and Nature. It is the only Hope for the world edging to great disorder and destruction to survive. It is time we awaken and know Calvary sacrifice of Jesus and Good News as a science beyond the boundary of religion. This is the only way to adapt to end time and survive 2012
Now, there will be the inevitable cognitive dissonance when 2012 does not turn out to be the apocalypse, but the evangelist “Mark” was similarily steeped in the expecation that the end of the age was at hand (see my posts under eschatology, though unlike the gentleman above I think Mark 13 discourages sign-watching by arguing all the preliminary signs will be fulfilled in a generation but not even the Son knows the day or hour of that great eschatological Day). But did the historical Jesus share Mark’s imminent eschatological expectation? A number of scholars since Albert Schweitzer would say yes (Geza Vermes, E.P. Sanders, Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, Paula Fredriksen, John P. Meier, Dale Allison, Bart Ehrman, Gerd Lüdemann, Maurice Casey, etc.), including many conservative Christian scholars who share the view in my last post on the historical reliability of the Gospels (Ben Witherington, N.T. Wright, James Dunn, Scot McKnight). This accords with the overall Synoptic presentation, is plausible in light of the baptism by an apocalyptic prophet (John the Baptist) and the earliest Christian sources as apocalyptic (Pauline epistles, including pre-Pauline fragments like the Aramaic prayer in 1 Cor 16:22 “Our Lord, come”), and fits many arguably authentic words/deeds of Jesus even if one demurs on the authenticity on some points (e.g., future kingdom sayings, reversal language such as “first will be last” or “blessed are the poor for theirs is the kingdom”, Lord’s prayer with petition “your kingdom come”, belief in general resurrection and warnings of divine judgement, many coming from east & west to dine with the Patriarchs, the Twelve symbolizing the regathering of the twelve tribes, the so-called “temple cleansing” as symbolic of eschatological destruction & restoration, Jesus’ forthcoming death interpreted as undergoing the tribulation and drinking the cup of wrath, Jesus as messianic king, apocalyptic Son of Man, etc.).
However, the other major option is to see the historical Jesus as a non-eschatological sage, with Jewish sapiential literature (traditional wisdom such as Proverbs or Sirach, or counter-cultural such as Ecclesiastes) or Greco-Roman Cynicism as analogies for comparative purposes (many critics of the “Cynic Jesus” miss this nuance) (see John Dominic Crossan, Robert Funk, Marcus Borg, Burton Mack, Stephen Patterson, Ron Cameron, collectively Jesus Seminar, etc). According to Borg (Jesus in Contemporary Scholarship, 87), Mark may be an intensification of Jewish eschatological expectation in light of tensions created by the Jewish War (he judges the apocalyptic Son of Man and Mark’s framing of Jesus’ message as the coming of God’s kingdom in 1:15 [cf. 9:1] as redactional). In this group many scholars turn to “Q” (from Quelle or “source”, the hypothetical sayings source many argue underlies the non-Markan sayings shared by Matthew/Luke) and follow John Kloppenborg who argued on form critical grounds that the earliest layer (Q1) was non-eschatological (for explanation of the literary stratification of Q see this post by William Arnal, for critique see this post by Stephen Carlson), accept the independence of the Gospel of Thomas (a collection of 114 sayings) from the canonical Gospels and provides multiple attestation for many of the sayings in Q1, and see many of the aphorisms, parables and pronouncement stories do not need to be read in an apocalyptic light.
So did Jesus share Mark’s apocalyptic worldview or didn’t he, and what is to be done with this scholarly maze? First, I think we need to get past the “Jesus Wars” and especially the unfair insinuation that Jesus Seminar types has argued for a “non-Jewish” Jesus (the essentialisms involved when some scholars invoke “Jewish identity” and some of the latent Christian triumphalist assumptions are ably deconstructed by William Arnal, Jonathan Z. Smith, James Crossley, more sources here). Lets have an honest, charitable debate about why scholars differ, without creating strawmen and with a willingness to learn from other perspectives even as we seek to defend our own. Second, as I tried to make this point in my review of Casey (see here, here, here, here, please share feedback in the comments?), I think before one makes a decision about the historical Jesus he or she must do their homework on source and form criticism: is Mark the first Gospel on which Matthew/Luke depend or a later abridgement of Matthew/Luke, is Luke independent or dependent on Matthew, if Luke and Matthew are independent did they get their shared non-Markan material from a single source (Q) or multiple written or oral sources, is John independent or dependent on the Synoptic tradition, is Thomas independent or dependent on the Synoptic tradition, when do these sources date, can we detect earlier hypothetical sources behind the Synoptics (Q, pre-Markan pronouncement stories, pre-Markan parable collection [Mk 4], eschatological discourse, pre-Markan passion narrative?), how was the Jesus tradition transmitted in the oral period, etc. Finally, to give my own general opinion on the reconstruction of the historical Jesus, I believe that both wisdom speech and eschatology are bedrock material and found in every layer – that is, Jesus challenged the contemporary status-quo of the socio-political order in Judaea under Roman imperialism with a counter-cultural wisdom and promised a dramatic reversal in fortunes when God’s empire comes in power.
Posted by Mike K. 
