Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [XTalk] Evans and historicity

Expand Messages
  • Ken Olson
    Rikk, 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
    Message 1 of 2 , Apr 27 1:02 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Rikk,

      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.

      Best,

      Ken

      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
      >>of
      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."<<
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.