For those who would like to explore further, I have an article out on the topic and I've reproduced it on the web for those who don't have access to the book:
Mark Goodacre, "Scripturalization in Mark's Crucifixion Narrative" in Geert van Oyen and Tom Shepherd (eds.), The Trial and Death of Jesus: Essays on the Passion Narrative in Mark (Leuven: Peeters, 2006): 33-47
I also have an unpublished piece available here, the Swan lecture at Nebraskan Wesleyan University, February 2006:
Mark Goodacre, "When Prophecy became Passion: The Death of Jesus and the Birth of the Gospels"
If you are interested in other episodes of the podcast, please visit the NT Pod web page or subscribe in your preferred reader or subscribe via iTunes. Or, of course, you can follow the NT Pod on Twitter or on the NT Pod Facebook page.
2 comments:
The Swan lecture is interesting.
Why did Jesus institute this meal to be done 'in remembrance of him'?
Did he expect people to forget who he was?
Did he expect to be betrayed that night?
Did he expect the movement to continue after his death?
What did he expect people to do?
Bart Ehrman wrote 'A lot of scholars questoin whether 1 Cor. 11 contains the actual words of Jesus at his last meal -- all part of the larger debate over how to establish which of the recorded sayings are authentic and which not. They don't in any event pass the standard "criterion of dissimilarity"'
Paul says he is passing on something. 'For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you...'
When Pauyl says he received something from the Lord, does he mean that he received something from the Lord?
Why does he not tell us from whom he received this?
Ehrman is certainly correct on that. But not only does 1 Cor 11:23-26 not pass the dissimilarity test, the whole passage from 11:23-32 looks like a much later insertion.
In addition, in 11:20 many English translations have it, "...the supper of the Lord," whereas in the Greek it is "a supper of the Lord."
Post a Comment