Jesus is a Jewish myth

This idea comes from RG Price's work "Gospel of Mark as Reaction and Allegory." In his work, Price is attempting to make a case that Mark is an allegory, and the motive for the allegory is the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. Mark was heavily influenced by Paul who manufactured Jesus (based on Old Testament allusions), and all further gospels are dependant upon Mark for content.

This is a clever argument, but doesn't stand up under scrutiny. I have 5 points which Price's theory doesn't account for.

1.       Main points of Christianity were established before Paul came on the scene.

Despite the dates of when the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles were completed, these documents contain statements which can be dated much earlier. The following are a short list (not exhaustive) of verses which have been identified as Jewish Christian creeds and pre-date Paul:

• Philippians 2:6 speaks of Jesus human and divine natures (Habermas 1996, pg 142)
• Romans 1:3-4 speaks of Jesus linage to David and his Devine Nature (Habermas 1996, pg 145)
• 1 Cor 15:3-4 Christ died, was buried, raised on the third day. (Habermas 1996, pg 145).
• Acts 2:22 and following. Peter's speech. Jesus was a man accredited by God to you by miracles (Habermas, 1996, page 150)
• 1 Tim 3:16 Jesus Ascension (Habermas 1996, pg 150).
•  Luke 24:34 Jesus appearance to Peter (Habermas 1996, pg 149)
• 1 Peter 3:28 Jesus' death for sins of mankind (Habermas 1996, pg 148)

Archeology confirms a pre-New Testament tradition of Jesus crucifixion and confirms major New Testament players were real people. A cave, found in the Mt of Olives (outside Jerusalem), in use "in the early part of the first century," contains ossuaries, cross inscriptions, and testimonies of Jesus being "helper" (or redeemer). (Gilman). burial cave

 TOP                 

2.       Matthew and Luke and contain independent early dated details of Jesus life before Mark was written.

 Price overlooks the substantial amount of early material (pre-Markian and certainly pre-70 AD that is not from Mark, corroborates Mark's gospel story, and which testifies to Jesus' life and teachings:

In Luke, there is a substantial amount of early information that is exclusive to Luke.  Here is a very small list of examples:

• Luke 3:10-14 preaching of John the Baptist
• Luke 7:11-15 Jesus raises son of widow
• Luke 10:39-42 dispute between Mary and Martha
• Luke 14:2-5 healing on the Sabbath.

The previous were established by Jewish-Christians in Palestine sometime between 40 – 60 CE (Van Voorst 2000, pg 139-140).

 In Mathew, there is also early teaching from Jesus that is exclusive to Matthew. Again a very small list of examples:

• Mathew 10:23 reference to "Son of Man" title
• Mathew 6:7-8 teaching on prayer
• Mathew 18: 23-34 Parable of unmerciful servant (teaching forgiveness).

There is a strong argument for the preceding selections which are dated 65-70 AD in the Jewish community of Jerusalem (Van Voorst 2000, pg 44).

 Finally I want to call attention to the "Q" references. Q is category of verses that are in both Luke and Matthew, but are not in Mark. There is an argument that "Q" is a single source document.  I'll not attempt to make a case for a single Q source's existence; however I would just like to point out that this is category of verses which are in both Luke and Matthew that are independent and pre-date Mark, which is sufficient for my case that Mark could not have been written intentionally as a fictitious allegory.

• Luke 3:7-9,16,17 & Matt 3:7-12  John the Baptist prophecy of Christ
• Luke 6:20-23, Math 5:3,4,6,11,12 Beatitudes
• Luke 6:26-30, Math 5:44,39,40,42 Love enemies and turn cheek
• Luke 17:23-24, Math 24:26-28 Coming of the Son of Man

The "Q"  verses have dates ranging from 40 and 70 AD by Jewish Christians (Van Voorst 2000, pg 164).

In summary, if Mark's account was intentionally a fictional allegory (written in Rome), then it is a striking coincidence that its testimony essentially matches the major tenants of these independent sources from across the Mediterranean and surrounding countries.

 TOP                            

3.       John isn't as dependant on Mark as Price implies. Also John, as an eyewitness, confirms Mark's account by referencing it and not mentioning any discrepancies.

Regarding the Gospel of John, only a few passages are reliant on Mark. (e.g. Jesus clearing the temple, Jesus feeding five thousand, Jesus walking on water). There are indications that the gospel of  John relied on Jewish-Christian oral or written creeds/tradition (independent from Mark) which are probably dated 65-70. For example:

• John 2:1-3 Jesus changes water to wine
• John 2:18-19 Jesus prophecy to rise after 3 days
• John 5:2-8 Healing
• John 18: 1-13 Jesus arrest
• John 19 Jesus crucifixion and death
• John 20 Empty tomb and appearances

There is also still a substantial amount of information of which John is apparently the source. E.g. Most of John 14-17, and Peter's reinstatement in John 21.

TOP                            

4.        Contradicts eyewitness corroboration.

By saying the other gospel's depend on Mark, Price is implying copied without prejudice; however it is the testimony of these gospel writers, and others who are contemporary and able to vouch for these works as eyewitnesses accounts, that they are writing original authentic works or corroborating others. John and Matthew were disciples and eyewitnesses. They would not have accepted Mark if it were fiction.

Additionally, Luke's testimony about his gospel states he "carefully investigated" everything [in his gospel]. Luke 1 1-4; Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.  Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

TOP                            

5.        Contrary to early Church Fathers testimony about Mark.

Eusebius in his Church History mentions a statement made by Clement of Alexandria toward the end of the second century. Clement reported that those who heard Peter were so impressed with his oral discourses on the gospel of Jesus that they pleaded for Peter's companion to put his discourses into writing, so they could always recall them. This may have prompted Mark to write his gospel.  (Christian Interconnect 2001)

Papias asserted that the content of Mark's gospel contained the content of the gospel that Peter taught and preached. Mark's gospel bears the stamp of Peter's presence and first hand experiences as an eyewitness to what Jesus said and did. Jesus' calling of Peter to be a disciple and apostle appears early in the first chapter (cf. Mark 1:16-18). Jesus' activities and teaching in Capernaum are shortly thereafter reported to have taken place in close association with Peter's house. Jesus left the synagogue and went to Peter's house where he healed Peter's mother-in-law of a fever (cf. Mark 1:29-31). There the people were bringing to Jesus their sick and demoniacs. The whole city of Capernaum gathered at Peter's door (cf. Mark 1:32-34). When Jesus went to a solitary place, it was Peter and his companions, meaning the other disciples, who hunted for Jesus (cf. Mark 1:35-37). It was most likely Peter's house that is called Jesus' home in Mark 2:1. There so many people gathered to hear Jesus and packed the house that no one could enter through the door. Thus the paralytic had to be lowered down to Jesus on a stretcher through Peter's dismantled roof for Jesus to heal the man (cf. Mark 2:1-12). It is again likely that it was Peter's house that is called Jesus' house in Mark 2:15, where the tax collectors and “sinners” gathered to eat with Jesus amid the complaints of the Pharisees and teachers of the law. It appears that it was to Peter's house that Jesus' family and brothers came to take Jesus into custody, because they thought he was out of his mind. Mark's gospel alone recorded this personal incident with the family of Jesus and how they thought he was crazy. This appears to be an observation that was preserved by Peter, to whose house they came looking for Jesus (cf. Mark 3:20,21). With regard to Peter's house being Jesus' house and home in Capernaum, see also Mark 7:17 and 9:28. Mark's gospel reaches a high point in the eighth chapter. First it is Peter, as spokesman for the group of disciples, who confesses that Jesus is the Christ. Then shortly thereafter it is Peter who rebukes Jesus for announcing his forthcoming suffering, death, and resurrection (cf. Mark 8:27-33). All these first hand experiences indicate Mark's gospel was an eyewitness account of Peter's, which reflections he included in the gospel of Jesus that he preached. (Christian Interconnect 2001)

          TOP                        

next >