NT Pod 33 is the fourth of our episodes on the Passion Narratives in the Gospels, all released this Passion Week of 2010. Its focus is the Fourth Gospel.
It is thirteen and half minutes long. Feel free to leave your comments below.
NT Pod 33: The Passion of Jesus in John's Gospel (mp3)
NT Pod 33: The Passion of Jesus in John's Gospel (mp3) (Alternative location)
Key texts: John 12, John 13, John 18, John 19, John 20, John 21.
Thanks to Ram2000, Me and You, for the opening theme, released under a Creative Commons agreement.
Raymond Brown has an excellent discussion of the date of the last supper in The Death of the Messiah at pages 1350-1378 (!). It all started to make sense after I read it 4 or so times.
ReplyDeleteHe also treats various attempts to reconcile the accounts, such as there were two calendars, passover lambs were killed on two days because of the influx of people into Jerusalem, etc.
He notes that the majority opt for John's chronology as being the more accurate. In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, Robert Stein argues that the synoptics are correct and John has rearranged things for theological reasons. I just ordered Stein's new commentary on Mark so it will be interesting to see if has changed his position.
-Neil Parille
Three things however need to be noted: (1) The synoptic gospels are older than John, i.e. their writers lived closer to the original events. That they retained the correct date is therefore more likely than in John's case. (2) Tradition clearly obeys the 15th of the 3rd month as the death of Christ, because Saint Longinus' feast day is on 15 March. (3) The 14th-Christians were called "Quartodecimans". But there were no "Quintodecimans", which means that the 15th was the majority view. Otherwise the Christians believing in the 15th would have received a unique name that distinguished them from the majority.
ReplyDeleteI personally think there are cultural/religious reasons for John's alternate dating. (Maybe I'll find time to write something about it.)
Here is an article by Barry D. Smith of Crandall University in which he argues that John's chronology is the same as the Synoptics --
ReplyDeletehttp://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/chronology_smith.pdf
-Neil Parille
Thanks for the interesting feedback. It's an area of interest to me and I hope to write about it more fully in due course. I became interested in the issues when doing my DPhil work in Oxford on Michael Goulder's theories of a liturgical origin for the Passion Narrative.
ReplyDeleteThanks for a great series, Mark. I certainly found it an edifying addition to a busy Holy Week. Your efforts are so much appreciated. I
ReplyDeleteFr. Dan
p.s., I have encouraged several people to listen to the NT POD so have added a link from my own blog, if you do not mind.
Thanks, Fr. Dan; appreciated. Best wishes, Mark.
ReplyDeleteI don't have any expertise in this area, but Smith's arguments strike me as a bit forced. Even so conservative a scholar as the late Leon Morris said that "eating the Passover" could only mean eating the Passover lamb.
ReplyDelete-Neil Parille
Quote: "Smith's arguments strike me as a bit forced." That's right. It's like the drunk who doesn't search for his lost apartment keys at the spot where he could have lost them, but under the street lamp, because it's so bright there. Consequently, if we assume that the gospels are not written but re-written history, then it's easy to explain the 14th versus the 15th, and you only need a couple of paragraphs to do so. (And from a scientific standpoint I personally prefer the easiest explanations with the least assumptions.)
ReplyDeleteJust wanted to say "Thank You very much for the great podcasts!"
ReplyDeleteMust read Smith. Have been completely unconvinced re harmonistic readings in the past.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Angela.
I received Robert Stein's new commentary on Mark. He discusses the problem and various solutions and says that there hasn't been a satisfatory resolution.
ReplyDelete-Neil Parille
How about a series on the resurrection Gospel passages now?
ReplyDeleteThanks, Neil.
ReplyDeleteGood idea, Matt. Perhaps next year.
Thanks, Mark, for another helpful tutorial.
ReplyDeleteWhile listening to your assessment of the discrepancy between crucifixion dates, it occurs to me that, if we shun John's attempt to set the record straight, and hold to a Passover crucifixion, we end up with a 'third day' resurrection on the second day of the Jewish week rather than on first-day.
It seems to me that the first-day traditions of worship, remembrance, etc., ought to tell heavily here - at least as weighty as the points you bring up.
-John Anngeister
Thanks, John. Not sure if that quite works because Jesus is still crucified the day before the sabbath in the Synoptics.
ReplyDeleteRight. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteMy problem is I'm locked on at 30AD for the crucifixion year, and I thought that put Passover on the Sabbath. But I see I need to qualify these things better (how badly is the crucifixion year is in doubt?).
Interesting note on the historical core in John. I've always been struck by how the Fourth Gospel Passion narrative explains the readers point of view.
ReplyDeleteWith the synoptics, we are told how the chief priests acted against Jesus, but it is only John who actually provides an explanation of how the reader can "overhear" what is happening - "As this disciple was known to the high priest, he entered the court of the high priest along with Jesus, while Peter stood outside at the door."
The synoptics seem to just take the reader into the events without any explanation of who is witness to them. The same is true, of course of the temptation narrative in Matthew and Luke - the reflective reader may think - how on earth was this known if no one was there? John seems to anchor his narrative in witnesses (and of course doesn't have a temptation narrative).
Thanks for your interesting comments, Tony.
ReplyDelete