Re: [XTalk] Evans and historicity
Thanks for that. I've found another example since that discussion on X-talk.
I've been reading through a number of commentators on the apparent
discrepancy between the Synoptics and John on whether the Last Supper was a
Passover meal and whether Jesus died on Passover or on the day before
Passover when the lambs are slaughtered for the meal. Evans eschews the
harmonization theories suggesting either (a) different dates for Passover
according to different calendars (so Annie Jaubert, and, with more
hesitation, Leon Morris) or (b) the theory that "Passover" can refer to any
meal during the Festival of Passover plus Unleavened Bread (so Donald
Carson). Evans thinks that John probably has the correct chronology (p.
372), but that Mark thought the Last Supper was a Passover meal and
presented it as such (pp. 372-373). While I would tend to go the other way
from Evans on that particular issue and favor the Synoptics over John, I
appreciate it that he does not attempt to dismiss the difficulty and claim
that John and the Synoptics are saying the same thing.
Kenneth A. Olson
MA, History, University of Maryland
PhD Student, Religion, Duke University
On April 27, Rikk watts wrote:
>>Sorry this is so late. But the passage in question is found at the bottom
p. 152 in his WBC Mark commentary.
About half way down, citing Meier's claim that the fig-tree account goes
back not to Jesus but Christian teaching and Telford's observation that
parables about fig-trees are frequent in rabbinic folklore, Evans observes
"what we may have here is a retelling of one such tale." After noting Wright
and Buchanan who think there might be some historical material here, he
concludes "Nevertheless, the reasons that Meier has marshalled (sic) against
the historicity of this curious tradition are compelling" quoting Meier
again "... to form a fairly firm judgment: in all likelihood, Mark 11:12-14,
20-21 does not go back to the historical Jesus."<<