Jews, however, were familiar with a significant uprising led by Theudas in AD 44-45 (Acts 5:36). One more reason for thinking the passion narrative is a pre-Markan tradition is the mention of “the insurrection” in which Barabbas was involved (Mark 15:7). Furthermore, the need to distinguish the two James would only be necessary until AD 44 when “James the older” died. If Theissen is right, then the need to distinguish the two James would have been necessary in Jerusalem where “James the younger” was overseer of the church. Theissen argues, “It would have been particularly necessary in Jerusalem to distinguish a ‘James the younger’ (or ‘the less’) from the ‘older’ (or ‘greater’).” He suggests that “James the younger” was the brother of Jesus, and “James the older” was the Son of Zebedee. Since he ruled till AD 37, the passion narrative that merely refers to him as “the high priest” must have been in circulation before his tenure ended.Īnother reason for thinking that the passion account is early and from Jerusalem is the mention of “James the younger” in Mark 15:40. They would assume I was talking about our current president. If I had a conversation with someone today and mentioned “the president,” no one would think I was talking about Trump, Obama, Bush, or any other previous president. This phrasing would be akin to saying “the president” instead of President Biden. One reason for adopting this view is that Mark mentions “the high priest” but never mentions him by name (Caiaphas). But a few features from the text suggest that it was composed earlier and in Jerusalem. Certainly, Mark could have composed these last few chapters himself. 11-16) flows like one continuous narrative. Instead of one short story after another, the entire passion account (ch. However, when one gets to the passion narrative, the entire account presupposes a chronological order. Meaning, Mark could have easily rearranged the stories in a different order without impacting the overall message. In fact, Matthew and Luke’s orders often diverge from Mark’s.

Rather, he ordered them in ways that suited his purposes. While biblical scholars are somewhat divided on this issue, the evidence tilts in favor of this pre-Markan source.įor example, scholars have long noted that Mark didn’t arrange the pericopes (e.g., miracles, parables, proclamations, narratives, exorcisms, etc.) chronologically. In other words, while Mark composed much of his Gospel based on Peter’s eyewitness testimony, the last few chapters came from another source that dates much closer to the time of Jesus’ death and resurrection. Protective anonymity is based on the premise that a pre-Markan tradition stands behind the passion narrative in Mark 14-16. While it does seem strange that the synoptic writers would leave out this story, I believe we have a good explanation for its absence in what Gerd Theissen calls “protective anonymity.” Pre-Markan Tradition But could there be a good reason that the earlier Gospels left it out? As you can imagine, skeptics think John made it up. After all, this story seems too significant to leave out. This head-scratching absence has raised a lot of doubts about its historicity. Yet, for some reason, Matthew, Mark, and Luke don’t mention it. Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead is one of the most well-known stories in the Gospels.

Proof of lazarus resurrection