Category Archives: narrative expansion
Team 5 // Question 3 “Nodes, Narratives, and the Empty Tomb”
According to White, the earliest oral traditions about Jesus, though brief, did include statements about the Last Supper, his death, burial, resurrection and appearances. These early traditions, he says, over time and with the help of storytellers’ artistic
enhancements, were developed from “loosely connected story ‘moments’” to “a flowing narrative” and the Passion narrative we know today. These alleged new components include the Judas story and the 
ascension scene. But why add these embellishments? White’s answer is that references to Jewish scriptures were a way to fill in gaps in the oral traditions, fleshing out a narrative and adding a sense of “divine guidance”, as well as serving an apologetic function to defend the young movement against its critics.
Matthew and Luke’s Gospel Passion accounts have many similarities with Mark’s, and the differences are largely additions rather than subtractions. This has led many scholars to suggest that Matthew and Luke actually got their material from Mark, and added to it. All three Gospels contain that the women went to the tomb on the Sabbath very early with spices, that they saw the stone rolled back, and finds someone at the tomb.
Matthew adds that there was an earthquake (v.2), names the person at the tomb as an angel that descended (v.2), mentions guards at the tomb (v.4), and that after hearing from the angel the women ran to tell the disciples.
Luke lacks some of the information in Mark, but adds that the women specifically didn’t find the body in the tomb (v.3), instead that there were two men at the tomb (v.4), the message of the angels described (v.5-8) is different than the descriptions in Matthew and Mark. This description includes a reference to Jesus’ predictions of his death in Luke 9 and 18. Finally, Luke also has the women going to tell the disciples about Jesus’ absence in the tomb (v.9). Both Luke and Matthew stick out from Mark in this regard, whom on the the contrary has the women overcome with fear and telling no one about the risen Jesus (Mark 16:8). There are some later verses (v.9-20), which do not appear in some of the earliest manuscripts, that tell of Jesus appearing to Mary Magdalene who subsequently went and told the disciples.
In our methodology in evaluating the writings of the early Christians, it is important to fairly examine the documents before jumping to conclusions about whether they are historical or not. The authors of 1st John and 2nd Peter identify themselves as eyewitnesses who themselves observed Jesus, not “inventing clever stories” (1st John 1:1,3 and 2nd Peter 1:16). Luke on the other hand, states he wasn’t an eyewitness to the events of his gospel, but is relying on eyewitnesses for his depiction (Luke 1:1). This seems to indicate, in contrast to the aretaology, the gospel writers saw themselves as eyewitnesses to record history. Evaluating these texts, it’s important to keep in mind witness testimony is colored by personal interests, predispositions, ambitions, and individual quirks. Furthermore, the perspectives of eyewitnesses would be limited to their own perspective. Many times, as modern readers, we don’t realize it was commonplace to round off specific numbers and descriptions, and confuse imprecision with error. Common details between gospel accounts would then be the most central, and variation in supplementary details can be expected. The gospel authors and the early church certainly had the chance to eliminate variations and supposed contradictions between gospel accounts, but they didn’t. Why? For the most part, the gospel traditions were circulated in the name of the eyewitnesses from whom they originated. This strikes me as a distinguished form of oral tradition distinguished by eyewitness backing. These are all integral points that should be a part of the historical study of the gospel accounts and their Christian writers.
4-21, Jesus and Judas, Team 2, Question 1
In 1 Corinthians and 1 Thessalonians, Peter gives a very brief story regarding Jesus’ death. He simply states the facts, ” He died, he was buried, he was raised, and he appeared.” Although Peter narratavised some, his letters largely followed oral tradition as can be seen in his writing. His writing style follows many of the nodes of oral tradition. His briefness and grammatical structure clearly indicated that he was recording an oral tradition rather than attempting to propagate Jesus’s teachings. One of the biggest nodes of oral tradition in which the gospels expanded was on the verb paradidonai. The translation of paradidonai essentially means “to deliver up”. The Gospels repeatedly interpreted this verb as betrayal even though that interpretation is inconsistent with Paul’s original meaning. In fact, Paul regularly uses the word in reference to the death of Jesus rather than his supposed arrest. In this sense paradidonai means Jesus is delivered up to God and not betrayed. (White, 113).
The gospels interpreted paradidonai as betrayal and insists that Judas “hands Jesus over” to the authorities. Mark is the first to narrativise this story as he adds clear intention by Judas and the arrest of Jesus. Mark writes that Judas went to the chief priests in order to betray Jesus and be compensated with money. Judas than leads a crowd of priests, scribes, and elders to arrest Jesus. Mark is the most moderate of the Gospels as he sticks mostly to the story and does not use as much hyperbole as the other Gospel authors.
Matthew and Luke however expand upon Mark’s writing and make Judas more of an enemy to Jesus and even to God.
Matthew expanded much more on the dialogue of Jesus and Judas and their internal feelings. This narrativises the story much more. Matthew also adds a deep felling of guilt and regret by Judas that causes Judas to give back his money and commit suicide for his actions. Although Matthew added more quotes, the beginning of his story is fairly consistent with Mark.
Luke on the other hand blatantly states that Satan entered the body of Judas. The tone of Luke’s writing and some of the events he slightly changed make the story more of a good vs evil/Jesus vs. Judas story. In this sense, Jesus becomes more of a hero. For example, Luke says that the 12 apostles began to openly question each other regarding who would betray Jesus. This is not mention in either MArk or Matthew. Luke also changes the arrest scene. In Mark and Matthew, Judas gives Jesus a kiss which informs the authorities who to arrest. However, in Luke, Jesus openly refuses this kiss and questions Judas’ motives. Luke uses the story of the last supper and the betrayal much more antagonistically than either Mark or Mathew.
John also depicts a Judas that is evil and an enemy of Jesus. John says that the devil was put into the heart of Judas. In the gospel of John, Judas procures soldiers as well as weapons and torches and seizes Jesus. John’s story is shorter but the most violent and antagonistic than the other three.
It is obvious that early christian story tellers found it necessary to create a story involving good vs. evil. They must be able to convince their readers and creating an enemy for Jesus gives meaning to his death and lets him go down as a martyr. The story of Judas as a traitor to Jesus also gives credence to Jesus’s Crucifixion. Ancient readers can at least somewhat understand his death not by judging Jesus as a criminal but as someone who was wrongly accused and truly suffered for us.
Question 2, Team 3
Gospel writers have developed blocks and eye witness accounts into narratives of Jesus life. White explains the practice of selecting passages from the Jewish scriptures that have already been translated into Greek and creating an interpretive narrative of Jesus’s life. Elaborations upon these Passion narratives we’re simply stories to fill in the gaps between the Last Supper and Resurrection. White adds how the play of each scene varies with the efforts to create the characterization and provide a more fitting ending. One of the sources used to create the gospels, mostly in Paul’s case, was oral tradition. Several examples of story nodes in Paul used in the development of the passion narrative include phrases like “took bread/cup” “dinner/evening” quoted in 1 Corinthians 11:23-25 elaborating on those clues to develop the Last Supper or Passover Meal. Referring to post Passover in 1 Corinthians 11:23 when Paul says “delivered up” to death referring to the gospel story of Jesus’s arrest and the story of Judas’s betrayal. The narratives regarding the death and resurrection of Jesus vary from book to book based off the time frame; more and more details were added on as time went on. Paul took “crucified” and “death on a cross” (1 Thessalonians 4:14, Philippines 2:8) elaborating and emphasizing that this was the plan all along by saying “according to the scriptures”, creating more of a messianic figure of Jesus. “None of the gospels give any details of the actual procedure or the specific sequence of actions in placing Jesus on the cross” (White p.132). In 1 Corinthians 15:4 “buried” in extended by Paul into the story of his preparations and burial in the tomb, including the two guards at the tomb depicted in Matthew and how the women observed the tomb in Mark. More nodes used by Paul come up when Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to several groups of people. The phrase “appeared to” reoccurs practically begging Paul to carry out further details to create more of a narrative.
Going from loosely connected “moments” to a glowing narrative is where the art of storytelling comes into play. New components, such as the Judas story or the “ascension” scene fill gaps in the narrative to resolve differences between earlier versions of the oral tradition (White p.124). The Hebrew scriptures play a role in this storytelling by giving the gospel writers a sense of divine guidance to the events elaborated on (White p.125). In the Gospel of Luke there is an added scene portraying a trial Herod Antipas, which occurs as an interlude in the trial of Jesus before Pilate (White p.125). Pilate seeks to avoid dealing with Jesus’s case by sending him to Antipas where he was further mocked and abused just to be sent back to Pilate again. This part of the narrative was added in Luke to give off the idea that Pilate did not think that Jesus was guilty of any crime punishable by death. The Lukan trial fits the formal Roman judicial procedure more accurately compared to the other versions.
When you picture the Passion narratives, the fact that Jesus was beat and whipped by the Romans seems to be something that sticks out to most believers, feeling emotion and sadness for their savior in suffering. Luke in contrast to the other gospels claims Pilate never flogged Jesus. Luke even adds the comment that after this exchange Pilate and Antipas became friends following the course of these events. Based off the way the additional trial was written (in favor of accurate Roman tradition and procedure) it could be that Luke was simply trying to give off a better, less guilty, more positive image of the Romans than what was given in other narratives.
Early Christian story tellers used the Hebrew scriptures as an outline to write the gospels, using numerous parallels from Psalm. Their goal was to fulfill the “prophetic” words of these scriptures through creating flowing narrative that the Greek-Romans could relate, understand and abide to. As mentioned in class, many of the early Christian authors felt superior to those of the Jewish religion that struggled to understand their scriptures. Able to interpret these nodes, the Gospel writers used oral tradition, storytelling and quotes from Jesus’s life on earth to develop a full narrative of his existence.
Passion Aretologies
In the Passion Story of Jesus, the writers of the gospels focused on specific areas of the story that they wished to elaborate on and redact in order to achieve a specific goal they saw necessary to achieve at that time. In the gospels however certain “nodes” are elaborated on more thoroughly in all of the gospels than others for specific reasons. Some of these nodes are surrounding the crucifixion,empty tomb after Jesus resurrection and the last supper. These two nodes are important to the early gospel writers because they are part of the larger tradition of aretologies created orally and in written texts to enhance the image of Jesus in the eyes of the wider Jewish and Greco-Roman world. The crucifixion was truly important for the gospel writers to redact as to align the story of Jesus with those of the old testament prophecies. This was important for convincing Jews of Jesus’s messianic traits. Also they wished to improve the view of Jesus in the Greco-Roman world from a criminal to a honorable and supernatural being similar to that of Apollonius of Tyana. These traditions were truly important in the eyes of the gospel writers as they were trying to create a Jesus’ story that was aligned with the Jewish prophecies and respected in the eyes of gentiles altogether.
As stated above, the gospel writers saw it ultimately necessary to tie the story of Jesus to the old testament prophecies about the messiah. This was something the gospel writers tasked themselves with in the earliest stages of the christian tradition. They wished to convince their Jewish counterparts of the messianic nature of Jesus by connecting his story directly to old testament, specifically prophecies in Isaiah and psalms. This can be seen throughout whites chapter and specifically on page 136-141. These charts point out where specifically the gospel writers sought to include old testament ideas into the gospels. Specifically Mark 11:1-10, When they were approaching Jerusalem … near the Mount of Olives compared to 14:4 On that day his feet shall stand on the Mount of Olives in Zechariah. Also, Luke 23:6-11 shows the author’s specific literary goals showing Jesus trial in a dignified manner with Jesus stoically facing persecution in the face of the king by also by showing his behavior as being in line with that of the messiah prophesied in the old testament. The reason why Luke left out Jesus’s flogging was likely due to the fact that flogging was a punishment given to a non roman criminals used to humiliate him and any of his possible associates. This was something Luke likely wanted to avoid as by his time he was writing to a large gentile audience. The description of the flogging of a supposed great person went against the aretological nature of the gospels and would have certainly added to the overall mockery of Jesus that already present in the Greco-roman world. Although John includes the flogging, he may have been writing to a well establish christian community in the roman empire by his time altogether.
Overall, the gospel writers tactics and techniques in writing the gospels show the overall goal of the early christian community. They wished to change the view of Jesus in the eyes of their contemporaries, both Jews and the wider Greco-Roman world. The gospel writers aretological goals sought to change the image of Jesus in the early years after his death. The views of him were humiliating and unapologetic and the gospel writers wished to counter this in the gospels altogether. This goal of the writers becomes more and more lucid as the later gospels were produced and Jesus continually elevated to a supernatural level that was severely removed from the historical Jesus altogether.
Team 6 Question 3
A. In the ending of the book of Mark the women go to the tomb to see Jesus and find that the stone in front of the tomb had already been moved. Once they go inside the tomb they see what is identified as a “young man dressed in a white robe” who tells them not to be afraid. Then the women run off and are afraid and the book ends. The short ending in Mark confused people since it did not discuss Jesus after he was resurrected. In Matthew and Luke however there are more fulfilling endings for believers to hold onto. For example in Matthew the women have an encounter with Jesus after they flee the tomb in fear. Also in Luke there are passages with Jesus addressing his disciples after he is resurrected. One explanation of the changes in these books is that Matthew and Luke developed Mark’s story for the audience at the time.
B. I believe that scholars would take the same ideas about the differences between the books. That being that Matthew and Luke would have taken the book of Mark and developed the ideas. Mark also uses the first person when Jesus speaks to people.
C. After examining this story in the different books I believe that Matthew and Luke were writing to a different, more confused, audience than Mark was. Since the audience was vastly different the book had to develop and change the ending in order to clear up the confusion. Another possible explanation however is that the developed version of the tomb story came from source Q.
Team 1, Question 1
The story of Judas is in all four gospels, however the story changes between each of them. However all these stories have the same key plot points essential to the Crucifixion story. But these plot points are expanded upon and narrativized to create a coherent and interesting story. These additions, which were probably added because of the fluid nature of oral tradition, we can call “nodes”.
In the gospel of Mark Judas is portrayed to “give up” Jesus, which is inherently different than intentionally betraying him. Mark still notes the reward Judas received; White claims Judas did this with no expectation of reward, and possibly did so to pressure Jesus into making a messianic claim.
Matthew expands upon this original story, by directly quoting Judas demanding compensation if he turns in Jesus. The addition seems to only serve for dramatic purposes, so presumably this was a node of oral tradition. Although Matthew portrayed Judas as malicious, he still humanized him. Judas was a greedy friend, but not a source of evil.
Luke furthers this villainization by adding Satan to the story. Judas becomes possessed by the evil spirit in order to capture Jesus. This addition makes for an incredibly compelling story, but contradicts the savior claims made by John. Because, if the Crucifixion and resurrection were essential for Jesus’s ascension into a messianic figure, then Judas’s role was unavoidable.
The Gospel of John depicts an incredibly detailed narrative of the last supper and Judas story. His Gospel is particularly interesting because his use of non-linear story telling. He interrupts his narrative story to explain what Judas will spend the blood money on, and how he will be accidentally killed (in a gruesome way). This addition or “node” is similar to the ones in Luke and Matthew in their discursive frames. Adding dialogue to increase drama and credibility, villainization of Jesus’ betrayer to confirm his benevolence, and tangent stories to exemplify Judas’ maliciousness, all are indicative of oral story telling, which was the foundation for christian belief, before the Gospels were even written.