Matthew tells the story of the night Jesus was arrested on the Mount of Olives (Mt. 26: 36-46). The Master talks to his companions about the coming betrayal before inviting his closest disciples to share the moment with him. They, of course, famously fall asleep instead. Jesus prays fervently alone, pleading with the Father. Finally, resolved to go through with whatever must come to pass, he rises only to be confronted with arrest.Was this the way it all happened, or is Matthew indulging in a spot of "creative writing"? After all, he wasn't there, and more to the point nor were Peter or John. So how did he - or anyone - know what happened and what Jesus said in private prayer?
"Now brethren," as certain preachers of my past acquaintance were wont to say, "if you'd keep your finger in Matthew, turn back to 2 Samuel 15."
Here we find a despairing, weeping David on the Mount of Olives (2 Sam. 15: 30). Here David prayed, according to tradition, the words of Psalm 3:2-3. It appears that Matthew was very familiar with both the psalm and 2 Samuel as he wrote the arrest account. Skip ahead to 2 Sam. 15:26 which expresses David's acceptance of whatever might follow: "let him do to me what seems good to him."
The parallels are fascinating, and it would be difficult to deny that while there are also obvious differences, one does not foreshadow the other. An ancient tradition is retreaded for a new audience
I'm indebted for these insights to Thomas Thompson's excellent The Bible in History (1999), now sadly out of print. Thompson writes:
On the night before [Jesus] dies, he fills David's role as pietism's everyman on the Mount of Olives... Like David, Jesus is abandoned by his followers. He suffers despair, and is without hope. He goes to his mountain to pray, paraphrasing David's words in the voice of tradition: 'not my will but yours be done.' ... This is reiterated history...Reiteration is a theme Thompson returns to again and again. There is, he states, not a lot of originality in the scriptures. Their purpose is theological, not historical.
It's a point that seems hard to argue with, except we all tend to "take it as read" anyway, even when we know better. Naïvely citing texts as "Jesus' words" is as common among progressive Christians as fundagelicals, the only difference usually being the texts selected. Yet stories are often recycled, like episodes in various series of the Star Trek corpus. Klingons morph into Cardassians, but the storyline is the recognizably the same.
Apart from indulging in Pollyanna apologetics, just what do we do with that reality?
Depicting someone in light of earlier events, whether from Scripture or some other source (for instance Socrates in the case of Paul in Acts 17), the Biblical authors draw heavily on types. Part of this is simply the oral culture, which form criticism intuitively picked up on even if it tended not to do justice to the underlying reality because of our tendency to think in literary terms. When you can't as a rule write things down, you use the things you already know as hooks on which to hang new information. You use what you already know to fill in gaps in your knowledge (leading to a lot of what we today view as inappropriate stereotyping). You use the same form to tell similar stories (which we do for the most part only with jokes, one of the few oral storytelling traditions that we manage to preserve).
ReplyDeleteIn some cases we are dealing with authors using Scripture to fill in what they think "must have happened." In others, we have things that we can be fairly confident happened being related to earlier types and stories. Distinguishing between the two is the challenge historians face.
"Matthew" , who also knows nothing of Jesus real birth circumstances, rewrote the meanings of many OT passages to mean what they never meant, to come up with a story. I'm sure it never happened in real time. Luke never read Matthew before he came up with his own remake of the OT and thus they do not match and cannot both be right. Neither are.
ReplyDeleteDennis
Let's see: Anonymous "Mark" used Homeric Epics, Septuagint and other fictional sources to construct "historical" fraud "biography"... and then anonymous "Matthew" COPIES MARK?!
ReplyDeleteAny wonder Christianity is being abandoned by enlightened educated Western World?
Inevitably, responses to dilemmas such as these expose the point of view and prejudices of the individual responders.
ReplyDeleteIt may be impossible to know the actual story behind this story. We do know that Jesus and His disciples were schooled in the Septuagint, and would have been familiar with the parallel situation of David. In fact, part of the instructional nature of Bible Study involves the individual Christian recognizing parallel experiences to his own in the Bible, and being encouraged and edified, having faith that the experience will end in a way conducive to one's eternal spiritual good.
We also don't know the totality of Jesus' "prescience" while undergoing His human experience. The Bible is often economical or sparing in its words. Depending on how much He actually knew, it is possible that He derived incredible comfort from the somewhat similar experience of David.
Of course, if one is committed to non-belief, all of this becomes a simple and valueless fairy tale.
BB
"..part of the instructional nature of Bible Study involves the individual Christian recognizing parallel experiences to his own in the Bible, and being encouraged and edified, having faith that the experience will end in a way conducive to one's eternal spiritual good.."
ReplyDeleteYou're starting to sound like a Liberal Anglican Priest ~ on the slippery slope to eternal damnation ~ the fate of all non predestined Calvinists.
""Now brethren," as certain preachers of my past acquaintance were wont to say, "if you'd keep your finger in Matthew, turn back to 2 Samuel 15."
ReplyDeleteAhahaha, whatta blast from the past! I actually think I remember that! (Dunno if that's a good thing or not.) That damned old Bible Jigsaw, all over again!
"In fact, part of the instructional nature of Bible Study involves the individual Christian recognizing parallel experiences to his own in the Bible,"
Sure, absolutely! Just like Herbert Armstrong (Elijah), Gerald Flurry (Malachi's Prophet), and Ronald Weinland (One-and-three-quarters of the Two Witnesses).
I just can't see a single thing going wrong, with "recognizing parallel experiences to your own" in teh Holey Babble, Bob!
Please, spare me your "The Holey Spirit Stops That From Happening t'The Troooooo Christians" crap, Bob; "The Holy Spirit" does NOT exist, as exemplified by the fact that the idiots named above were NOT stopped, in any way, shape, form, or fashion, from seeing themselves in the pages of the KJV. They were not stopped by any spirit, any god, any deity, or any other office of law, other than that of MEN. (The California AG in Herbie's case, and the criminal Hank Hanegraaf, in Senior's case. And only the postal fraudster Hanegraaf, was successful, at that.)
If you want to now use the argument, "Well, they weren't TRUE Christians," then you run smack into fallacy once again; even Gracie admits there's no such thing as a "true" Christian (although Junior and his minions are falser Christians than most, given their inerrant love of blithering hypocrisy), and if the hokey megachurch that's hooked you in, is teaching you there are "true" and "false" Christians, well then: How are they substantially different from what "the True Church" used to teach?
I'm waiting....
James F. McGrath said...
ReplyDelete>When you can't as a rule write things down, you use the things you already know as hooks on which to hang new information.<
O the irony! What you wrote is a classic example of the principle you outlined.
However, the NT is latent in the old, and the old is patent in the new. So everything that Jesus said or did, or experienced, was prophesied in the OT.
In addition, it was not necessary for the authors of the NT to witness every event they described, as they were inspired by God, who witnessed the events, to record what occured and what was said(2 Tim.3:16).
Bob, I am about as “committed to non-belief” (by which I mean “fascinated by puzzles I have not yet solved”) as anyone who comments here, yet for me the gospel is not “a simple and valueless fairy tale.” The story of Jesus is incredibly complex, as shown by the arguments people get into about it, and extremely valuable, as shown by its spread and persistence. Fairy tales so widely and long retained are never valueless. If they were, the people would not remember them and keep arguing about them.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, part of the instructional nature of folklore listening/reading involves the individual human recognizing parallel experiences to his own in the tales, and being encouraged and edified, having the conscious or subconscious feeling that the experience will end in a way conducive to one’s social and psychological fitness.
Inevitably, the benefits derived from the tales and from discussions of them depend on the point of view and prejudices of the individual responders.
Whoa...hi Tom, long time no see!
ReplyDelete(Gavin? You feeling all right?)
Well, Purpsie, it's not the Bible's fault that some use its words for spiritual edification, while others use it to support their own megalomania, or narcissism. Thinking people do not blame a literary work for how people choose to use it. That would be just plain bogus. Reaction is neither universal, nor automatic.
ReplyDeleteObviously, HWA and his minions used it in a toxic fashion, and that becomes our mutual problem. Many people of faith, otoh, have found God's word to be edifying, encouraging, and conducive to spiritual advancement. I imagine from your past posts that you probably live in a Muslim neighborhood, one in which your neighbors defy stereotype, and are exemplary and peaceful. However, my neighbors and many of my friends are Christian, and have consistently provided a wonderful and inspiring example. They are no more like HWA and his legion of false teachers than your Muslim friends are like Qadafi, bin Laden, or Khomeini.
BB