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.
0 kommentar(er)
