How a Fictional Jesus Gave Rise to Christianity

By R.G. Price

Having written several pieces on the historicity of Jesus (Jesus Myth - The Case Against HistoricalChrist, Jesus Myth Part II - Follow-up, Commentary, and Expansion, The Gospel of Mark as Reactionand Allegory), I think it is of critical importance to not simply cast doubt on the historical existence ofJesus, but to actually put forward plausible explanations for the development of early Christian writingsand how the widespread belief in a real life Jesus was established. This piece builds on the evidencelaid out in my prior writings and ties everything together into a cohesive explanation for the origins ofbelief in a human Jesus and the development of early Christian history.

I want to make something very clear: Not only do I think that "Jesus never existed", I think it's verypossible, given the evidence, to build a solid case which proves "beyond a reasonable doubt" that Jesusdid not exist. The primary pieces of evidence in my case against the existence of Jesus are in fact theGospels themselves.

After having studied this subject for years, I have moved away from the term "myth" to describe theorigins of "Jesus", and now view the origins of belief in a real human Jesus to be a product ofmisunderstood fiction. I call this the Fictional Jesus Theory. What I will do first is provide a basicoverview of how I think the belief in a real Jesus and the rise of Christianity occurred, then lay out the

1

evidence supporting my Fictional Jesus Theory.

Overview Apocalyptic Origins of Christian Theology Creation of the Markan Narrative Development of the Other Gospels The Author of Mark had Read the Letters of Paul "Q" or a Lost Version of Mark? Non-canonical Gospels Summary of the Gospel Analysis The Reception and Impact of the Gospels All Knowledge of Jesus Came from the Gospels Confusion of the Early Christian Scholars The New Pantheon of Christian Heroes Summary and Conclusion

Overview

A small messianic cult (one of many) arose in Jerusalem and the surrounding area that worshiped aheavenly messiah named Jesus some time in the early 1st century. Someone called James was likely theleader of this movement. This was a small explicitly Jewish cult that had little significance and was notwidely known. Someone called Paul became a convert to this movement and began proselytizing aboutit to both Jews and non-Jews (Gentiles) throughout the Mediterranean region. Up to this point "Jesus"was universally understood by the cult's followers as a heavenly messiah, uncorrupted by the materialworld, not an actual human being. Some time during the First Jewish-Roman War, most likely shortlyafter the Siege of Jerusalem and destruction of the temple in 70 CE, some follower of Paul wrote anallegorical story that cast "Jesus" as the protagonist in a fictional narrative about the Jews, whichportrayed the Jews as having brought the destruction of the war upon themselves. This story is what wenow call the Gospel of Mark. The Synoptic Gospels of Matthew and Luke were both based on anintermediate expanded version of Mark, which has since been lost. The Gospel called John descendsfrom the Synoptic narrative in some way, with the inclusion of additional literary elements as well.

Every single narrative about Jesus, canonical and non-canonical, descends directly or indirectly fromthe Gospel called Mark, making this fictional story the single point of origin for all belief in a realhuman Jesus. By the end of the 1st century the belief that the Gospels were "true" accounts of eventsthat had really happened was common, as was the belief that Jesus had been a real person. Belief in a"real life Jesus" arose solely from the Gospel stories themselves. From the late 1st century through theearly 3rd century there was widespread confusion over who Jesus was and whether or not he had everactually existed on earth as pre-Gospel beliefs about Jesus were reinterpreted in the context of theGospel narratives.

2

By the early 2nd century interest in the Jesus cult grew, largely as a product of the Gospel stories,which were exciting and of particular interest to the non-Jewish population following the First Jewish-Roman War as the Jewish Diaspora spread throughout the region. From the 2nd century through the 4thand 5th centuries (and beyond) many additional stories were written about various figures from theGospel narratives, such as Mary and the so-called twelve disciples. These stories were themselves amix of concocted fiction, mythology, and urban legends. Indeed many of these later stories, written byformer pagans, incorporated elements of local pagan mythology. After the religion gained prominencein the 4th through 6th centuries, many stories mythologizing martyrs and early church figures wereconcocted. All of these fictional stories, from the Gospels through to the martyrdom tales, were"historicized" by "scholars" who believed that they were all true and wrote histories based on thesestories as if they were authentic records of real history.

So the reality is that it's not just that "Jesus did not exist", the reality is that the majority of earlyChristian history is fabricated. For example I would say that we actually know nothing more aboutPeter, a key figure in early Church "history", than what was recorded in the letters of Paul, and it'shighly doubtful that "Peter" had anything to do with the founding of the Church in Rome or that heeven lived beyond the early 1st century. Peter was, most likely, simply a follower of James, whom Paulhad associated with in Jerusalem in the early 1st century and really played no role whatsoever in thedevelopment of the religion beyond whatever role he played in the small Jewish cult's activities inJerusalem. The "Peter" of importance to "Christian history" is just a fabrication based on the Gospelnarratives.

I do think we can conclude that a few of the figures from the Gospel narratives and early Christianhistory were "real people", or at least based on real people. Those include Paul, James, John, Peter,Barnabas, Pontius Pilate, and Herod. John the Baptist may or may not have been a real person, it'sdifficult to determine, but impossible to rule out. However I would say that the authentic letters of Paulare the only somewhat reliable sources of information about individuals from the early Jesusmovement, and everything else written about such figures was knowingly or unknowingly based onfabrications and misinformation.

What is important to understand about this is that such "fabrications" were not at all unusual at thetime. After all, virtually all of these fabricated stories were produced by the same culture that created arich mythology encompassing literally thousands of gods, demigods and heroes, and in whichmythologizing the lives of real people was commonplace. It is critically important to differentiate,however, the origins of the Jesus cult, the Jesus narrative, and later Christian narratives and beliefs. TheJesus cult and early Gospel narratives are highly Jewish in their origin, with increasing paganinfluences only coming later as the religion was adopted by Greeks and Romans from the 2nd centuryon.

The remaining question of course is why or how, then, did Christianity spread and become thedominant religion of the Roman world in the course of a few hundred years? This is a much more

3

complicated question, and one that I don't think anyone today can fully answer, but at a high level Ithink there were two main avenues: The religion gained prominence both among a certain class ofpowerful "intellectuals" and among the poor, for largely different reasons. First let's address the"intellectuals". The belief that the Gospels held the key to predicting the future was extremely powerfulamong certain intellectuals and leaders. This belief stemmed ultimately from a misunderstanding of theliterary allusions in the Gospels, which were interpreted as "prophecy" by early Christian apologists.These early Greek and Roman Christians believed that the Gospels proved that the Hebrew scripturescould predict the future, and they saw the "prophetic fulfillment" evidenced in the Gospels as "proofthat the religion was true." This was a compelling factor among people in positions of power. Militaryleaders, governors, and even emperors were literally persuaded to believe that the Gospels providedsolid proof of prophetic power, and that they or their Christian advisors would be able to use Christianand Jewish scriptures to predict the future. Of course the ability to predict the future was seen as theultimate source of power by Greeks and Romans, who had long been fascinated with the notion ofprophecy.

The other major factor that contributed to the early spread of Christianity was appeal of the religion tothe poor. Judaism had a long tradition of sympathy toward the poor and dispossessed. This is verylikely because the Jews were a relatively poor and dispossessed people living amongst very powerfuland successful empires, such as the Egyptians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Carthaginians,etc. The Jews were subjects or slaves of many of these empires at various points in their history. Assuch, Jewish religion dealt heavily with suffering, poverty and dispossession, unlike the religions of themore successful and powerful cultures that surrounded them, whose religions tended to espouse power,triumph and domination.

The Christian movement happened to come along at a time when poverty and unrest were on the risewithin the Roman empire, and this movement, with its strong messages of support for the poor anddispossessed was appealing to the growing numbers of poor and dispossessed peoples of the region.Furthermore, and very importantly, major changes were taking place within the Roman army at thistime. The Roman army was becoming increasingly filled with the ranks of the poor, immigrants, andmen with families. As such, Christianity was particularly popular among the soldiers of the Romanarmy. As the rank-and-file of the Roman army became increasingly Christian, this put pressure onmilitary leaders, and ultimately emperors, to embrace the religion. So basically, Christianity appealedto the poor more than many of the traditional religions of the region, and the Roman army wasincreasingly populated by the poor. In addition, the Christian promise of heaven and appeal to sufferingand martyrdom proved useful to military leaders.

The idea, however, that Christians were heavily persecuted during the first few centuries of thereligion's history is highly dubious. The reality is that if Christians were in fact heavily persecuted thereligion would likely never have gained prominence. The stories of widespread Christian persecutionduring the first through third centuries are later fabrications that were concocted largely after thereligion had actually gained dominance.

4

Furthermore, religion was viewed as something of a "lucky charm" by most people at the time,especially within the military. People frequently switched religions and the gods that they favoredbased on perceptions of related military success. As such, it was common among those in the militaryto adopt the religions or patron gods of people who were successful on the battlefield. Militarysuccesses by Christian warriors led to the conversion of other warriors, not so much because of anyparticularly Christian beliefs, but simply because, "So-and-so won a battle and So-and-so wasChristian, therefore his god must be strong and helpful, so I'll worship that god too so I can beprotected and successful in battle."

Christianity was more rapidly adopted by the Roman army and the armies of surrounding civilizations,such as the Visigoths, than it was by the civilian population. Christianity gained its dominance thoughthis military avenue, basically rising up through the military from the foot soldiers to the officers andultimately up to the emperor. Leadership had two compelling reasons to embrace Christianity: boththeir belief in the prophetic power of the Jewish and Christian scriptures, and its widespread popularityamong soldiers. Given the fact that the Roman empire by this time had essentially become a militarydictatorship, the dominance of Christianity within the military had profound implications for theRoman population as well as the development of Christian institutions.

Politically, Christianity became revolutionary and a means of overthrowing the entrenched Romanaristocracy. As Christians gained political power they used sanctuary to encourage slaves of paganowners to convert. Both Christians and pagans held slaves, but slaves of pagan owners who convertedto Christianity could escape to churches and gain their freedom. This undermined the wealth and powerof pagan aristocrats. In addition, as Christians gained political power they changed the laws to allowonly Christians to inherit estates, they cut off funding to pagan temples, they de-funded libraries, andfought wars against non-Christian Romans. The Christian revolution of the 4th through 6th centurieswas somewhat similar to the 20th century communist revolutions in its forcefulness, its use ofpropaganda, and in the manner in which it redistributed wealth from the aristocracy to the state byappropriating the property of pagan aristocrats and turning it over to the church and government.

So let's begin at the beginning and see how this all got started.

Apocalyptic Origins of Christian Theology

A central element of the Jesus story is the concept of Jesus as "The Messiah". But what exactly is a"messiah"? Today most Christian scholars would say that for Jews "at the time of Jesus" "the messiah"was the idea of a descendent of David who would lead the Jews to establish an independent Jewishstate, usually by means of military victory over their oppressors. The reality is that 2,000 years agothere was no singular concept of "the messiah" among Jews. However, it is true that most descriptionsof a messiah from Jews prior to "the time of Jesus" described the messiah as a human being.

Likewise, most messianic stories prior to the Jesus story describe the role of the messiah as somehoweliminating corruption within Jewish society and establishing some sort of idealized Jewish kingdom.

5

How and why this would happen, or what the ultimate result would be, was highly variable amongdifferent Jewish writers of the time, and indeed there were Jews who did not believe in the concept of amessiah at all.

What sets the Jesus story apart, however, is the idea that the kingdom created by the messiah would notbe on earth at all, but rather it would be in heaven. This has major implications for understanding theorigins of the Jesus story - the idea that "the kingdom of God" established by "the messiah" would be inheaven. This is an idea that developed within a sub-sect of Jews, perhaps influenced by the Platonicidea that the material world is hopelessly corrupt and cannot be perfected. For this group of Jews, theidea of a "perfect" Jewish kingdom ever being established on earth was absurd. They knew that thiswould never happen. The corruption of the material world, and "the flesh", made it clear to these Jewsthat not only could a perfect kingdom only be established in heaven, but indeed the messiah himselfmust be heavenly - uncorrupted by the material world.

The theology of this sect stated that the messiah would destroy the material world, to make way for thecreation of a new uncorrupted heavenly world. Within this framework, the idea of an earthly messiahmakes no sense at all. The central concept here was that the material world itself was hopelesslycorrupt and beyond salvation. Within this theology, the only thing that could be saved was man'simmaterial soul, and this saving had to be accomplished by the complete and total destruction of thematerial world.

6

Of course this would not be achieved by an earthly messiah. The idea of a messiah who had ever beencorrupted by becoming "flesh" was completely antithetical to the theology. What we see in the beliefsof so-called Gnostic sects that were documented in the 2nd through 4th centuries (as we will laterexplore) is the merger of the pre-Gospel concept of the immaterial Jesus with the Gospel narratives.This is why we have records in the early 2nd century, after the Gospel stories had become widespread,of many "Christian" sects who believed that the Jesus described in the Gospels was an immaterialapparition. It really makes no sense that such a belief would arise after the belief in a real human Jesuswas already established. The belief that the Jesus of the Gospels was an immaterial apparition was aproduct of trying to reconcile the pre-Gospel belief in an immaterial messiah with the Gospel stories,which portrayed Jesus as a real live human on earth.

This is also why we see in the letters of Paul that Paul talks about the coming of Jesus, not the "secondcoming" or "return" of Jesus. For example, in Paul's letters to the Thessalonians he states:

1 Thessalonians 4:13 But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those whohave fallen asleep, so that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. 14 For sincewe believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with himthose who have fallen asleep. 15 For this we declare to you by the word of the Lord,that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will by no means

7

precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord himself, with a cry of command,with the archangels call and with the sound of Gods trumpet, will descend fromheaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive, who are left,will be caught up in the clouds together with them to meet the Lord in the air; and so wewill be with the Lord for ever.

2 Thessalonians 1:5 All this is evidence that God's judgment is right, and as a result youwill be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are suffering. 6 God is just:He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you 7 and give relief to you who aretroubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed fromheaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. 8 He will punish those who do notknow God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9 They will be punished witheverlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from themajesty of his power 10 on the day he comes to be glorified in his holy people and tobe marveled at among all those who have believed. This includes you, because youbelieved our testimony to you.

Notice that there is no talk of a "return" of Jesus, but that these events are described as the initialcoming of Jesus. It was only after the writing of the Gospels that the coming of Jesus was re-cast as the"second coming" of Jesus.

The conflict between the core apocalyptic theology of Christianity and the Gospel stories has alwaysbeen unsettling within the religion. Many core elements of Christian theology contradict each other,which has caused Christian theologians to perform philosophical gymnastics for centuries, and this allstems from the fact that at the very core of the religion there is this conflict between the theology of animmaterial heavenly messiah and a messiah who was "made flesh". This is why we end up with theTrinity and other logical impossibilities to try and explain Christian theology, because from the veryoutset Christian theology was inherently built on the concept of a corrupt material world that can onlybe saved by an immaterial messiah, yet stories about a real human messiah are central to theestablishment of its legitimacy.

Creation of the Markan Narrative

Many New Testament scholars believe that the canonical Gospels and other early Christian writingsabout Jesus reflect either observations made by the writers and other people about Jesus, or at least thatthey reflect some collective oral narratives or anecdotes that emerged among groups of Jesus'followers. In other words, even if New Testament scholars agree that Jesus didn't really walk on wateror miraculously heal people, they believe that such stories about Jesus must have developed withinsome community as oral traditions or teachings and spread by word of mouth to many people, beforehaving been chronicled by the Gospel writers.

So, the vast majority of New Testament scholars still see the Gospel writers ultimately as chroniclers,whether or not they were chronicling real events or just "real legends" depends on who you ask, butnevertheless, the Gospel writers were merely people who were recording what they either observed or

8

heard from other people. And the fact that other people, presumably many other people, had such talesto tell is ultimately traced back to the life of the real Jesus, who, one way or another, inspired thesetales.

What I think the evidence shows is basically the exact opposite of this. I think the evidence shows thatthe first narrative about a human Jesus was a story that we call the Gospel of Mark, and that the scenesin this story are the invention of the author, not the reflection of any existing traditions or observations.My view is that there was no concept of a human Jesus until the story we call the Gospel of Mark waswritten, and that all narratives about Jesus and the various characters found in the Gospel called Markare dependent, either directly or indirectly, on this story.

There was no oral tradition about Jesus walking on water or healing people, etc., until these storyelements were invented by the author of Mark. What existed prior to the Gospel called Mark was aGnostic cult that worshiped a heavenly Messiah called Jesus who was crucified by spiritual powers inheaven, and who was going to bring about a new "Kingdom of God" by destroying the corrupt materialworld and creating a new perfect immaterial world in heaven, into which the souls of the deservingwould be brought, while the souls of the undeserving would be cast into eternal torment.

The author of the story called the Gospel of Mark was a follower of a Pauline ministry (whether he hadany real direct knowledge of Paul is impossible to say), who likely became disillusioned with the cultafter the First Jewish-Roman War of 66 - 73 CE and the sacking of Jerusalem. In response to the defeatof the Jews and the destruction of Jerusalem, this person wrote a fictional story in which he cast "JesusChrist" as the protagonist, who leads the readers through a series of events meant to demonstrate thecorruption and ungodliness of the Jews, to show that the Jews had brought the war upon themselvesand that their defeat at the hands of the Romans was a punishment from their own god. That's what thestory is about. The story we call the Gospel of Mark is a fictional story that was written in reaction tothe sacking of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple.

9

The reason that I think the story we call the Gospel of Mark is a fictional narrative about the FirstJewish-Roman War is because of the nature of the literary allusions used in the story. The directscriptural references and literary allusions that I have been able to identify (some of which have notbeen recognized by other Biblical scholars) are summarized below:

Scene Reference Subject of Reference

The Proclamation ofJohn the Baptist

Malachi 3:1;Isaiah 40;2Kings 1

Judgment of God on Israel;Comfort to Israel for fulfillment ofpunishment through destruction;Identification of Elijah

The Baptism of Jesus Isaiah 11; Isaiah42 Identification of God's servant

Jesus Calls the FirstDisciples Jeremiah 16 Punishment of Israel

The Man with anUnclean Spirit Isaiah 65 God's people don't recognize him

Jesus Heals a Paralytic 2 Kings 5 Elijah/Elisha healing miraclesThe Purpose of theParables Isaiah 6 Punishment of Israel

Jesus Stills a Storm Psalm 107 Identification of the LordJesus Heals theGerasene Demoniac Isaiah 64 Punishment of Israel

10

A Girl Restored toLife and a WomanHealed

1 Kings 17;2Kings 4 Elijah/Elisha healing miracles

Death of John theBaptist 2 Kings 2

Transfer of Spirit from Elijah toElisha

Feeding the FiveThousand 2 Kings 4 Elijah/Elisha feeding miracles

Jesus Walks on Water Isaiah 43 Identification of the Savior of IsraelFeeding the FourThousand 2 Kings 4 Elijah/Elisha feeding miracles

Jesus Foretells HisDeath andResurrection

Isaiah 53 Suffering Servant

The Transfiguration Daniel 12 Description of eternal life andshining like a star for the righteous

Temptations to Sin Isaiah 66 Description of punishment foropponents of God

Jesus' Triumphal Entryinto Jerusalem

Zachariah 14;Zachariah 9;Psalm 118

Identification of the ruler of Israel

Jesus Curses the FigTree and Clears theTemple

Hosea 9 Admonition of the Jews,Punishment of Israel

The Parable of theWicked Tenants Isaiah 5

Admonition of the Jews,Punishment of Israel

The Destruction of theTemple Foretold Isaiah 13, 14, 19

Admonition of the Jews,Punishment of Israel

The DesolatingSacrilege Daniel 9, 11, 12

Admonition of the Jews,Destruction foretold

The Coming of theSon of Man

Isaiah 13,Daniel 7

Destruction, Punishment of theworld; Coming of an eternal ruler

The Anointing atBethany

2 Kings 9;1Samuel 10 Anointing of the ruler of Israel

Judas Agrees toBetray Jesus Amos 2

Admonition of the Jews,Punishment of Israel

The Passover with theDisciples 1 Samuel 10 Preparations for kingship

Jesus predicts hisBetrayal Psalm 41

Invocation for revenge againsttransgressors

Peter's Denial Foretold Zechariah 13 Wrath against betrayersThe Betrayal andArrest of Jesus Amos 2

Admonition of the Jews,Punishment of Israel

11

Jesus before theCouncil

Isaiah 53; Psalm110; Psalm 35

Suffering Servant; Prayer fordeliverance from enemies; Prayerfor retribution on oppressors

Jesus before Pilate Isaiah 53 Suffering ServantThe Soldiers MockJesus Isaiah 50 Suffering Servant

The Crucifixion ofJesus

Amos 2; Psalm22; Amos 8

Judgment on Israel; Prayer fordeliverance from suffering;Admonition of the Jews,Punishment of Israel

The Burial of Jesus Isaiah 53 Suffering Servant

The writer of the story called the Gospel of Mark created a very clever multi-layered narrative, that heintended for his audience to be able to decipher and understand. The writer made extensive use ofliterary allusions as a vital part of the narrative, in such a way that the intention of the work was forpeople to recognize the literary allusions and then look them up in order to understand the story.Apparently, however, this isn't what happened. What happened was that many people believed the storyto be literally true, and only recognized a relatively small portion of the literary allusions. The onesthey did recognize they interpreted as "prophecy fulfillment" instead of literary allusions.

Much of the story called the Gospel of Mark follows the story of Elijah and Elisha from 1 and 2 Kings.In fact I would call the story of Elijah and Elisha in 1 and 2 Kings the primary template for the Gospelcalled Mark. The story of Elijah and Elisha was popular and would have been well known to a Jewishaudience. The borrowing from this story was intentionally quite overt. In fact the similarities betweenthe Gospel called Mark and 1 and 2 Kings go well beyond the literary allusions outlined above. Foranyone seeking to understand the Gospels, I strongly recommend reading the entire books of 1 and 2Kings. In doing so you will see that there are really countless parallels between them and the Gospelcalled Mark.

The other pattern that we see among the literary allusions used in the Gospel called Mark is theabundant use of allusions to passages about punishment of Israel and God brining destruction on "hispeople". This is why I believe the story was written in reaction to the First Jewish-Roman War. For amore complete analysis of all of the literary allusions listed above you can refer to my piece, TheGospel of Mark as Reaction and Allegory.

However, I'd like to focus on one simple element of the story to demonstrate that this is a fictionalstory, crafted by the author with the intent that readers use the literary allusions to understand the story.In the Gospel called Mark, John the Baptist represents Elijah. Knowing this is important forunderstanding the story. How are readers supposed to know that John the Baptist represents Elijah inthe story? Readers are told this at the very beginning of the story through the use of literary allusion. Infact, readers are clued into the fact that the story will parallel much of 1 and 2 Kings right from the

12

beginning.

The author uses an implicit reference to the Hebrew scriptures when the author introduces the characterof John the Baptist.

Mark 1:4 John the baptizer appeared in the wilderness, proclaiming a baptism of repentancefor the forgiveness of sins. 5 And people from the whole Judean countryside and all thepeople of Jerusalem were going out to him, and were baptized by him in the river Jordan,confessing their sins. 6 Now John was clothed with camel's hair, with a leather beltaround his waist, and he ate locusts and wild honey. 7 He proclaimed, 'The one who ismore powerful than I is coming after me; I am not worthy to stoop down and untie thethong of his sandals. 8 I have baptized you with water; but he will baptize you with theHoly Spirit.'

Mark 1:6 refers to 2 Kings 1:8, which provides a description of Elijah.

2 Kings 1:8 They replied, "He was a man with a garment of hair and with a leather beltaround his waist." The king said, "That was Elijah the Tishbite."

This description of John the Baptist, as a man "clothed with camel's hair, with a leather belt around hiswaist," is the only way that the reader can figure out that John the Baptist is Elijah. In order to figurethat out, the reader has to recognize this literary allusion and know that it describes Elijah. To anaudience of Jews who grew up listening to stories about Elijah, this probably wouldn't have beendifficult. But what is important is that it's clear that the reader is supposed to be aware of the literaryallusion, because the author makes use of information from it later on in the story.

Not only this, but Mark 1:2 is a reference to Malachi 3. The book of Malachi concludes in Malachi 4 bysaying that the Lord will send Elijah before the day of his wrath:

Mark 1:1 The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ. 2 As it is written in the prophets,'See, I am sending my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way;3 the voice of one crying out in the wilderness:

"Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight"',

This refers to Malachi 3:1:

Malachi 3:1 See, I am sending my messenger to prepare the way before me, and theLord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple. The messenger of the covenant inwhom you delightindeed, he is coming, says the Lord of hosts. 2 But who can endure theday of his coming, and who can stand when he appears?

Malachi 4:5 Lo, I will send you the prophet Elijah before the great and terrible day of theLord comes.

As is typical throughout Mark we see "hidden meaning" in the narrative through the use of literary

13

allusion. If you just read the narrative at face value the opening scene of Mark appears quite innocentand nice. However when you look at the literary allusions you see that the story is about thecondemnation of the Jews and the destruction of Israel that occurred during the First Jewish-RomanWar. The coming of Jesus is not a good thing, it is a harbinger of destruction, which is actually alludedto multiple times in the story.

So by looking at the literary allusions in the opening scene of Mark we see very complexforeshadowing and messaging. We are told in Mark 1:2 that John the Baptist is a messenger preparingthe way for the Lord, who will come to the temple, which foreshadows the temple cleansing scene inMark 11. We are told via the book of Malachi that the events unfolding are part of the coming judgmentof God against Israel, which will result in destruction and punishment of the Jews, which will bepreceded by the coming of Elijah. We then see John the Baptist identified as Elijah in Mark 1:6.

In Mark 6 we are told of the killing of John the Baptist by Herod at the urging of his wife Herodias in ascenario reminiscent of Jezebel's plot to kill Elijah from 1 Kings.

After the transfiguration scene in Mark 9 the disciples ask Jesus about Elijah.

Mark 9:9 As they were coming down the mountain, he ordered them to tell no one aboutwhat they had seen, until after the Son of Man had risen from the dead. 10 So they kept thematter to themselves, questioning what this rising from the dead could mean. 11 Then theyasked him, 'Why do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?' 12 He said to them,'Elijah is indeed coming first to restore all things. How then is it written about the Sonof Man, that he is to go through many sufferings and be treated with contempt? 13But I tell you that Elijah has come, and they did to him whatever they pleased, as it iswritten about him.'

It is here that the literary allusions from Mark 1:2-6 become important, because one has to realize fromthe literary allusion to 2 Kings 1:8 that John the Baptist is Elijah in order for this scene to make anysense. In addition, the question asked by the disciples refers to the passage in Malachi that talks aboutElijah coming before, "the great and terrible day of the Lord."

And again in the crucifixion scene the author makes use of the reference:

Mark 15:33 When it was noon, darkness came over the whole earth until three in theafternoon. 34 At three o'clock Jesus cried out with a loud voice, 'Eloi, Eloi, lemasabachthani?' which means, 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?' 35 When someof the bystanders heard it, they said, 'Listen, he is calling for Elijah.' 36 And someone ran,filled a sponge with sour wine, put it on a stick, and gave it to him to drink, saying, 'Wait,let us see whether Elijah will come to take him down.' 37 Then Jesus gave a loud cry andbreathed his last.

Of course Elijah does not come to take him down, because he has been killed by Herod.

All of this is just one example of how the author crafted an intricate multi-layered narrative, throughthe use of literary allusions, which it is clear that the author intended his audience to be able to

14

decipher. This type of complex writing makes it clear that the author is crafting a story - the author isnot merely chronicling events or recording anecdotes that he heard from other people. We see this allthroughout the Gospel called Mark. The author makes copious use of symbolism, foreshadowing, ironyand literary allusion, including foreshadowing through literary allusion. These are all hallmarks whichindicate that the author invented this story from whole cloth himself. The narrative of the story we callthe Gospel of Mark is clearly crafted with purpose and intent by the author.

Not only that, but much of the story is related to the destruction of the First Jewish-Roman War. Thedestruction of that war is a pervasive theme throughout the narrative, which means that the narrativecan't be based on pre-existing anecdotes about Jesus from 30 CE - 60 CE, because so many of thescenes are based on literary allusions that deal with the war and the destruction of the temple in 70 CE.That the story is really about the war is made evident in the opening lines when the author quotesdirectly from Malachi and Isaiah 11, both of which deal with destruction brought upon Israel as apunishment from God.

This goes directly against the idea that the author of this story was merely recording some pre-existingcollection of anecdotes about Jesus that exited as part of some community-based oral tradition. Theway that most scholars today view the Gospels, in particular Mark, is that even if we acknowledge thatthe writers had no direct knowledge of Jesus, it is assumed that the events they describe in their writingwere not at all invented by the writers themselves. The assumption is that the events described in theGospels are records of some existing narrative. The assumption is that in all of the early writings aboutJesus, none of the writers were inventors, that what they wrote down didn't originate in the minds of thewriters. The assumption is that all of the Gospel writers were merely recording things that they hadheard from other people - that the information came from some outside source.

My position on the Gospel called Mark is that this story was invented out of whole cloth by the author,and it does not reflect any significant oral tradition or pre-existing beliefs about Jesus. I don't think thatthere was any pre-existing story about Jesus having twelve disciples, being baptized by John theBaptist, healing people, feeding large groups of people, walking on water, throwing merchants out ofthe temple, being transfigured, being anointed, being betrayed by Judas, being tried, or even anynarrative about his crucifixion. I think all of these things are pure inventions by the author of the storywe call the Gospel of Mark.

The reason I think that is because all of these scenes in the Gospel called Mark are based on literaryallusions, and all of these same scenes in other sources show clear dependence on Mark. This meansthat everyone else who wrote about these scenes is basing them on the accounts in Mark, which wouldonly happen if there were no other accounts to go by. We know that the accounts in Mark aren't basedon any oral tradition, because they are based on literary allusion. And the way that the narrative ofMark is crafted indicates that it can't possibly be some lose collection of pre-existing anecdotes,because the narrative itself fits together like a jigsaw puzzle. The only way that such a narrative cancome into existence is through the intentional design of its author. And not only that, so much of the

15

narrative revolves around events that occurred in 70 CE, namely the war and destruction of the temple.

If the narrative of Mark were based on some pre-existing oral tradition or based on accounts of realevents that actually happened, then we would expect there to be entirely different independent accountsor independent accounts of these same events, and indeed for millennia it was believed that the fourGospels were evidence of independent accounts of the same sets of events. But now careful studyshows us that the opposite is true. Careful study shows us that far from being independent accounts,every other account shows dependence on Mark, which is exactly what we are going to explore next.

Development of the other Gospels

One of the most interesting scenes in the Gospels from an analytical perspective is the famous"Cleansing of the Temple" scene. There are many reasons why this scene is so interesting, and why it isso critical to unlocking an understanding of how the Gospels were written.

As I explained in The Gospel of Mark as Reaction and Allegory, the temple scene is actually part of aliterary allusion to Hosea 9 in the Hebrew scriptures. In the Markan narrative, the famous cursing of thefig tree is an integral part of the temple narrative. This is because the cursing of the fig tree and theexpulsion from the temple are all components of the same literary allusion to Hosea 9. It is clear thatthe later Gospel writers, who copied from Mark, were unaware of this literary allusion, and were thusconfused about how to handle the scene.

Lets take a look at how exactly this scene was originally authored by the writer of Mark, and how itwas then handled by the later writers who copied it from Mark.

First, let's start with the passage from Hosea 9, to which the author of Mark was making a literaryallusion:

16

Hosea 9:1 Do not rejoice, O Israel; do not be jubilant like the other nations. Foryou have been unfaithful to your God; ...

7 The days of punishment are coming, the days of reckoning are at hand. LetIsrael know this. Because your sins are so many and your hostility so great, theprophet is considered a fool, the inspired man a maniac.

8 The prophet, along with my God, is the watchman over Ephraim, yetsnares await him on all his paths, and hostility in the house of his God.9 They have sunk deep into corruption, as in the days of Gibeah. God willremember their wickedness and punish them for their sins. 10 'When I found Israel, it was like finding grapes in the desert; when I sawyour fathers, it was like seeing the early fruit on the fig tree. But when theycame to Baal Peor, they consecrated themselves to that shameful idol andbecame as vile as the thing they loved.

11 Ephraim's glory will fly away like a birdno birth, no pregnancy, noconception.12 Even if they rear children, I will bereave them of every one. Woe to themwhen I turn away from them!

13 I have seen Ephraim, like Tyre, planted in a pleasant place. But Ephraim willbring out their children to the slayer."

14 Give them, O LORDwhat will you give them? Give them wombs thatmiscarry and breasts that are dry.

15 "Because of all their wickedness in Gilgal, I hated them there. Because oftheir sinful deeds, I will drive them out of my house. I will no longer lovethem; all their leaders are rebellious.

16 Ephraim is blighted, their root is withered, they yield no fruit. Even ifthey bear children, I will slay their cherished offspring.'

17 My God will reject them because they have not obeyed him;

From this passage, the author of Mark crafted the following scene:

Mark 11:12 The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. 13 Seeing in thedistance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, hefound nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. 14 Then he said to thetree, "May no one ever eat fruit from you again." And his disciples heard him say it.

15 On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple area and began driving out thosewho were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers andthe benches of those selling doves, 16 and would not allow anyone to carry merchandisethrough the temple courts. 17 And as he taught them, he said, "Is it not written:

"'My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations'? But you have made it 'a den ofrobbers.'"

18 The chief priests and the teachers of the law heard this and began looking for a

17

way to kill him, for they feared him, because the whole crowd was amazed at histeaching.

19 When evening came, they went out of the city.

20 In the morning, as they went along, they saw the fig tree withered from the roots. 21Peter remembered and said to Jesus, "Rabbi, look! The fig tree you cursed has withered!"

We can see in the Markan text that the cursing of the fig tree, the driving out of people from the temple(house of God), and the hostility toward Jesus, are all related elements which are drawn from Hosea 9.All of these elements, and the order in which they are presented in the Markan narrative, are necessaryto make the association between Hosea 9 and the narrative.

Most important, however, is that if we accept the fact that the Markan narrative is actually a literaryallusion, then it means that this scene is not based on any real event that ever took place. It means that"Jesus" never cursed a fig tree and "Jesus" never threw anyone out of the temple. None of this actuallyever happened; this isn't a historical event. The scene is merely a literary allusion, but yet every otherGospel contains the cleansing of the temple narrative. If the cleansing of the temple comes from Hosea9, not from a real world event, then the fact that it exists in all of the other Gospels means that all of theother Gospels, including John, had to have ultimately gotten the scene from Mark. We can see that theGospel called Mark is where the scene originated, because it is only in Mark, as we shall see, that theliterary allusion is clear. All of the other Gospel writers apparently didn't recognize the literary allusion,and ended up altering the scene in ways that lost the correlations between the scene and Hosea 9.

So now lets look at how the other Gospel writers handled the temple scene. In Matthew the order ofevents is altered. Jesus goes directly from his triumphal entry to the temple, with no cursing of the figtree. The cursing of the fig tree then takes place after he has left the temple. The author also throws inextra elements, like healing the lame, which aren't in the Markan narrative and have no relationship toHosea 9. The author of Matthew also left out the statement that the priests feared him and wanted tokill him, which relates back to Hosea 9. Instead he has them being amazed.

Matthew 21:12 Then Jesus entered the temple and drove out all who were selling andbuying in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats ofthose who sold doves. 13 He said to them, "It is written,

'My house shall be called a house of prayer'; but you are making it a den of robbers."

14 The blind and the lame came to him in the temple, and he cured them. 15 But when thechief priests and the scribes saw the amazing things that he did, and heard thechildren crying out in the temple, "Hosanna to the Son of David," they became angry16 and said to him, "Do you hear what these are saying?" Jesus said to them, "Yes; haveyou never read,

'Out of the mouths of infants and nursing babies you have prepared praise for yourself'?"

18

17 He left them, went out of the city to Bethany, and spent the night there.

18 In the morning, when he returned to the city, he was hungry. 19 And seeing a fig treeby the side of the road, he went to it and found nothing at all on it but leaves. Then hesaid to it, "May no fruit ever come from you again!" And the fig tree withered at once.20 When the disciples saw it, they were amazed, saying, "How did the fig tree wither atonce?" 21 Jesus answered them, "Truly I tell you, if you have faith and do not doubt, notonly will you do what has been done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain,'Be lifted up and thrown into the sea,' it will be done. 22 Whatever you ask for in prayerwith faith, you will receive."

Finally, the author of Matthew has Jesus simply find a fig tree with no fruit on it, which he then cursesand immediately makes whither. The narrative as the author of Matthew has written it really makes nosense at all. It has clearly lost the referential qualities that relate the narrative back to Hosea 9. All ofthe precise language that the author of Mark used to relate the narrative back to Hosea 9 is gone, andwe are instead left with a crude story about someone just killing a fig tree because it didn't have anyfruit for him. It is very clear that whoever wrote the Gospel called Matthew had no idea that the scenewas based on a literary allusion, and yet they obviously copied the narrative from Mark while addingtheir own flourishes to it.

Now let's look at the temple scene in Luke. In the Gospel called Luke the writer has inserted a passagebetween the Triumphal Entry scene and the Temple scene, but has completely left out all references tothe fig tree. We are left with a much shorter passage, which more closely resembles the original textfrom Mark, minus the bracketing fig tree elements. Again it is clear that the author of Luke copied thepassage from the Gospel called Mark. However, by having left out the fig tree elements, there isnothing that makes the relationship between Hosea 9 and the text clear. The result is the isolation of thetemple scene as if it were its own historical event.

Luke 19:45 Then he entered the temple and began to drive out those who were sellingthings there; 46 and he said, "It is written,

'My house shall be a house of prayer'; but you have made it a den of robbers."

47 Every day he was teaching in the temple. The chief priests, the scribes, and theleaders of the people kept looking for a way to kill him; 48 but they did not findanything they could do, for all the people were spellbound by what they heard.

Ironically, the temple scene described in the Gospel called John has long been the most famous of thetemple scenes, because it is in many ways the most descriptive. The author of John has added manyflourishes to the scene and completely removed it from its original context.

John 2:13 The Passover of the Jews was near, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14 In thetemple he found people selling cattle, sheep, and doves, and the money changersseated at their tables. 15 Making a whip of cords, he drove all of them out of the

19

temple, both the sheep and the cattle. He also poured out the coins of the moneychangers and overturned their tables. 16 He told those who were selling the doves,"Take these things out of here! Stop making my Father's house a marketplace!" 17His disciples remembered that it was written, "Zeal for your house will consume me." 18The Jews then said to him, "What sign can you show us for doing this?" 19 Jesus answeredthem, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." 20 The Jews then said,"This temple has been under construction for forty-six years, and will you raise it up inthree days?" 21 But he was speaking of the temple of his body. 22 After he was raised fromthe dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this; and they believed the scripture andthe word that Jesus had spoken.

The original narrative in Mark says nothing about a whip and nothing about pouring out coins, theseare obviously added fabrications. How did this version of the narrative come about? Had the author ofJohn read some version of the Markan narrative and made the changes to the story himself? Is theauthor of John simply passing on an oral version of the story that he heard, which had simply evolvedover time through the passage of oral tradition, based on the Markan narrative? Like many other similarexamples throughout the Gospel called John, there may be no way ever know, but what is clear is thatone way or another, directly or indirectly, the temple scene in John comes from the temple scene inMark. While the scene has been significantly changed, there are enough commonalities to indicate thatthe scene in John is a descendent of the scene in Mark.

This is simply one example of how we can understand the relationships between the Gospel texts andhow we can use the understanding of literary allusion in Mark to ascertain the historical validity ofGospel accounts. But let's really consider what all of this means, and then we'll look at how thecleansing of the temple has been understood by Christian scholars over the years.

If we acknowledge that the Gospel called Mark is the first of the Gospels that was written, and that thescene in Mark is a literary allusion, then what this tells us is that the temple narrative, at the very least,is fictional. We can ascertain with certainty that the temple scene as it was recorded in Mark is not anactual historical account, because the scene is clearly crafted from literary references to the Hebrewscriptures. We know that the purpose of the fig tree scene is to frame the passage in such as way as tomake the literary reference to Hosea 9 clear (though obviously it wasn't clear enough because the otherGospel writers and essentially every Christian scholar over the past 2,000 years has missed it). Weknow that the text of the temple scene itself, the "driving out", is also part of the literary reference.

So now we've established that, at the very least, the Markan account of the temple scene is nothistorical. Even if one were to argue that there was actually a real Jesus, and he really did drivemerchants out of the temple, there are significant problems here. If there was some real templecleansing event, then what's clear is that none of the other Gospel writers had any knowledge of it. Ifthey had had knowledge of a real event where a real Jesus threw merchants out of the temple, then theywouldn't have simply copied their versions of the story from what is clearly a fictional account. So wecan now conclude with confidence that the account in Mark is fictional, and the accounts in all of theother Gospels descend from the Markan account, which means that none of the other Gospel writers

20

had any knowledge of a real event either, since they are using a fictional account as the basis for theirnarratives.

This makes the idea that there was any real event highly doubtful, because if there was any real templecleansing event performed by a real Jesus, and the Gospel writers had any knowledge of a real Jesus,then they wouldn't have all copied from a fictional account of the event - they would have written theirown accounts of it. In fact, this is exactly what Christians have believed to be the case from the verybeginning - that the accounts in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were all separate independentaccounts. What this shows, however, is that they aren't separate independent accounts. All of theaccounts are copied from Mark, and the account in Mark is clearly fictional. This leaves us withnothing. In fact, it leaves us with more than nothing.

At this point the fact that we have three Gospel accounts that can be proven to be copied from a singlefictional story doesn't merely leave us with lack of evidence so that we can only say that we "don'tknow" if this event really happened or not, it actually leaves us with a strong case against this everhaving been real. The fact that three separate writers all copied from a single fictional account meansthat none of those writers had any knowledge of a real event. So now we basically have positiveevidence that four people had no knowledge of Jesus actually cleansing the temple. But this is reallythe tip of the iceberg, because in fact virtually every scene in the Gospels follows this same pattern.The result is that we end up with positive evidence that none of the Gospel writers had any knowledgeof a real Jesus. They could not have, because in case after case they can all be shown to be copyingpassages from Mark which originated as literary allusions.

If someone has real firsthand or even secondhand knowledge of a person, and they go to record abiography of their life and deeds, they aren't going to include in that biography things that werecompletely made up by other people. So the fact that all of the other Gospel writers included in theiraccounts many passages which can be proven to be fabricated by the author of Mark, essentially provesthat none of the other Gospel writers had any knowledge of Jesus at all. All of the Gospels descendfrom the Markan narrative, which is a fictional story.

But, before we go on to assess other scenes from the Gospels, let's look at how the fig tree and templecleansing scenes have been interpreted by Christian scholars.

Let's simply look at what the New Revised Standard Version Harper Collins Study Bible (which is avery highly regarded work that is deemed to contain the latest, and among the most authoritative,scholarship on Biblical analysis) says about these passages. The notes on this scene in the NRSV StudyBible say:

Mark 11.12-25 The cursing of the fig tree and cleansing of the temple are interwoven. ...[t]he image of a fruitless fig tree is used to indict the leaders of the people. In the immediatecontext here the reason is that they failed to welcome Jesus as he entered Jerusalem. It wasnot the season, or "time appointed by God," for figs. This enigmatic saying may explain theanticlimactic character of Jesus' entry into Jerusalem. It was not yet time appointed by God

21

for Jesus' installation as king. ... The selling and buying of doves and other items forofferings and the changing of money were essential for carrying out the divinecommandments regarding sacrifices. Jesus' deeds imply that these activities should not beconducted on the Temple Mount, but elsewhere, in order to maintain the sacred character ofthe whole temple complex, including the outer court. This interpretation is supported by theprohibition against carrying things through the temple.

It goes on, but the main point here is that there is no acknowledgement of the literary allusion to Hosea9. The passage is being interpreted as a real world historical event. There is acknowledgement of theobvious scriptural references, like the "den of robber" quote from Jeremiah, but the allusion to Hosea 9is unrecognized. The cursing of the fig tree is interpreted symbolically, but without understanding theallusion to Hosea 9 it is clearly grasping at straws. This is the standard scholarly Christianinterpretation - that the cursing of the fig tree is meant to symbolize the cursing of the leaders, that thefig tree represents the Jewish leaders. Clearly, once you recognize the literary allusion, that isn't thecase. The explanation for being out of season is again clearly grasping at straws and trying to explainthe passage purely in the context of the Gospel narrative itself. Once you realize that this is a literaryallusion it's obvious that this explanation is completely wrong. The reason that the narrative says thatJesus looked for fruit on the fig tree before it was in season is because the author is making a literaryallusion to the line, "when I saw your fathers, it was like seeing the early fruit on the fig tree," fromHosea 9. Being not yet in season is merely a literary device. In Hosea 9 early fruit was found on the figtree. In Mark the early fruit is not found, because the people are no longer in the "good graces" of Godaccording to the narrative.

And again "Jesus' deeds" at the temple aren't implying anything, because they never happened. Jesus'deeds at the temple, "driving out those who were buying and selling there," are a literary device, usedto construct a reference to the line, "Because of their sinful deeds, I will drive them out of my house," inHosea 9.

Let's see what the NRSV Study Bible says about the temple cleansing scene in John:

John 2.13-22 The cleansing of the temple is found at the end of Jesus' mission in the otherGospels; this is more likely to be correct historically, since it may have been one reason forhis crucifixion.

Well, yes, Jesus' actions at the temple in the Markan story are used to move the plot along and providea motive for his execution, that's true, but this was merely the work of a good story teller providinggood plot elements, not a historical reality. We know this, again, because the scene is a literary allusion.

The reality is that today the cleansing of the temple by Jesus is one of the most widely acceptedhistorical truths of the Gospels. Virtually everyone, from Bart Ehrman to History Channel"documentaries" to, of course, faithful Christians, "knows" that this is something that really happened.It's easy to see why. The event is one of the few meaningful actions of Jesus that is found in all fourGospels which has no supernatural element to it. It is at least somewhat plausible that this could have

22

really happened (never mind the fact that the temple was a huge well guarded structure where peopleweren't allowed to just stroll around and cause a ruckus). This is why demonstrating that this sceneoriginated in Mark as a literary allusion is such a critical blow to the idea that Jesus really existed. Thisis, aside from the crucifixion itself, one of the events in the Gospels that is most widely and stronglyaccepted as "historically true".

So having dealt with the temple cleansing, let us now turn to the crucifixion itself, the most importantscene in the Gospels. Unlike the temple scene, however, the crucifixion scene is well known to be aliterary allusion to Psalm 22, among other passages from the Hebrew scriptures. Not only do modernscholars recognize that the crucifixion scene in Mark is based on Psalm 22, but even other Gospelwriters recognized this.

Here is the crucifixion scene as it is written in the Gospel called Mark:

Mark 15:23 And they offered him wine mixed with myrrh; but he did not take it. 24 Andthey crucified him, and divided his clothes among them, casting lots to decide what eachshould take.

25 It was nine o'clock in the morning when they crucified him. 26 The inscription of thecharge against him read, 'The King of the Jews.' 27 And with him they crucified twobandits, one on his right and one on his left. 29 Those who passed by mocked him,shaking their heads and saying, 'Aha! You who would destroy the temple and build it inthree days, 30 save yourself, and come down from the cross!' 31 In the same way the chiefpriests, along with the scribes, were also mocking him among themselves and saying,

23

'He saved others; he cannot save himself. 32 Let the Messiah, the King of Israel, comedown from the cross now, so that we may see and believe.' Those who were crucified withhim also taunted him.

33 When it was noon, darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon. 34 Atthree o'clock Jesus cried out with a loud voice, 'Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?' whichmeans, 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?' 35 When some of thebystanders heard it, they said, 'Listen, he is calling for Elijah.' 36 And someone ran, filled asponge with sour wine, put it on a stick, and gave it to him to drink, saying, 'Wait, let us seewhether Elijah will come to take him down.' 37 Then Jesus gave a loud cry and breathed hislast. 38 And the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. 39 Now whenthe centurion, who stood facing him, saw that in this way he breathed his last, he said,'Truly this man was the son of God!'

This, as we can see, pulls heavily from Psalm 22, referencing lines from Psalm 22 in reverse order.

Psalm 22:1 My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?

Why are you so far from helping me, from the words of my groaning?

2 O my God, I cry by day, but you do not answer; and by night, but find no rest.

3 Yet you are holy, enthroned on the praises of Israel.

4 In you our ancestors trusted; they trusted, and you delivered them.

5 To you they cried, and were saved; in you they trusted, and were not put to shame.

6 But I am a worm, and not human; scorned by others, and despised by the people.

7 All who see me mock at me; they make mouths at me, they shake their heads;

8 'Commit your cause to the Lord; let him deliverlet him rescue the one in whom hedelights!'

9 Yet it was you who took me from the womb; you kept me safe on my mother's breast.10 On you I was cast from my birth, and since my mother bore me you have been my God.11 Do not be far from me, for trouble is near and there is no one to help.

12 Many bulls encircle me, strong bulls of Bashan surround me;

13 they open wide their mouths at me, like a ravening and roaring lion.

14 I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint; my heart is like wax; it ismelted within my breast;

15 my mouth is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue sticks to my jaws; you lay me in

24

the dust of death.

16 For dogs are all around me; a company of evildoers encircles me. My hands and feethave shriveled;

17 I can count all my bones. They stare and gloat over me;

18 they divide my clothes among themselves, and for my clothing they cast lots.

So again we have a scene in which the details are clearly drawn from scriptural references, whichmeans that they aren't historical observations. Christians have long claimed that it's possible that Jesusreally said, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me," because he himself could have beenquoting from Psalm 22. A long accepted scholarly explanation for this obvious literary allusion hasbeen that Jesus quoted from Psalm 22, which then caused the Gospel writers to refer back to Psalm 22and use it as motif for their narrative. The even more faithful explanation is of course that Psalm 22was a prophecy, and that the events of Jesus' crucifixion fulfilled Biblical prophecy. We'll explore thatmore later. However, the problem with all of this is the fact that Psalm 22 isn't an isolated case ofliterary allusion. This is literally how the entirety of the Gospel called Mark is written. Virtually everyscene is a literary allusion using similar patterns to what we see here.

But these aren't the only literary references in the crucifixion scene in Mark.

Mark 15:23 And they offered him wine mixed with myrrh; but he did not take it. 24And they crucified him, and divided his clothes among them, casting lots to decide whateach should take.

25 It was nine o'clock in the morning when they crucified him. 26 The inscription of thecharge against him read, 'The King of the Jews.' 27 And with him they crucified twobandits, one on his right and one on his left. 29 Those who passed by mocked him, shakingtheir heads and saying, 'Aha! You who would destroy the temple and build it in three days,30 save yourself, and come down from the cross!' 31 In the same way the chief priests,along with the scribes, were also mocking him among themselves and saying, 'He savedothers; he cannot save himself. 32 Let the Messiah, the King of Israel, come down from thecross now, so that we may see and believe.' Those who were crucified with him also tauntedhim. 33 When it was noon, darkness came over the whole earth until three in theafternoon. 34 At three o'clock Jesus cried out with a loud voice, 'Eloi, Eloi, lemasabachthani?' which means, 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?' 35 When someof the bystanders heard it, they said, 'Listen, he is calling for Elijah.' 36 And someone ran,filled a sponge with sour wine, put it on a stick, and gave it to him to drink, saying, 'Wait,let us see whether Elijah will come to take him down.' 37 Then Jesus gave a loud cry andbreathed his last. 38 And the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. 39Now when the centurion, who stood facing him, saw that in this way he breathed his last,he said, 'Truly this man was the son of God!'

From the book of Amos we have the following additional references as well.

25

Amos 2:12 But you gave the consecrated ones wine to drink, and you commanded theprophets, saying, Prophesy not.

Amos 8:1 This is what the Lord God showed mea basket of summer fruit. 2 He said,'Amos, what do you see?' And I said, 'A basket of summer fruit.' Then the Lord said to me,'The end has come upon my people Israel; I will never again pass them by.3 The songs of the temple shall become wailings on that day,' says the Lord God; 'the deadbodies shall be many, cast out in every place. Be silent!'

...

7 The Lord has sworn by the pride of Jacob: Surely I will never forget any of their deeds. 8Shall not the land tremble on this account, and everyone mourn who lives in it, and all of itrise like the Nile, and be tossed about and sink again, like the Nile of Egypt?

9 On that day, says the Lord God, I will make the sun go down at noon, and darkenthe earth in broad daylight. 10 I will turn your feasts into mourning, and all your songsinto lamentation; I will bring sackcloth on all loins, and baldness on every head;I will make it like the mourning for an only son, and the end of it like a bitter day.

I believe that the context of the passage referenced in Amos 8 leaves little doubt that the author of Markintended for the literary allusions to give greater meaning to this scene. We see once again the use ofliterary allusions to passages from the Hebrew scriptures that talk about God punishing the people ofIsrael through destruction, which of course all relates to the First Jewish-Roman War and the sacking ofJerusalem in 70 CE.

This ties the cursing of the fig tree, the temple scene, and the crucifixion together. When you look at theliterary allusions to Hosea 9 in both the fig tree/temple scene and the allusions to Amos in thecrucifixion scene, you see the common theme of condemnation between them. We see the temple beingre-introduced in the crucifixion scene by saying, "Those who passed by mocked him, shaking theirheads and saying, 'Aha! You who would destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself, andcome down from the cross,'" and the tearing of the temple curtain. This is all very symbolic andmeaningful, and would have been very relevant to an audience who was aware of the recent destructionof the temple by the Romans. But all of the symbolism, foreshadowing, and meaning that we findthroughout the Gospel called Mark indicates that what Mark really is, is a very well crafted and wellthought-out fictional allegorical story, not a chronicle of real historical events. When you understandthe literary allusions, and you put the story in the context of the First Jewish-Roman War, it is clear thatthe symbolism and meaning of the story is really about the Jews and the war, using Jesus as a literarydevice.

More on all this later, but now let's now take a look at the versions of this scene from the other Gospelwriters.

Matthew 27:34 they offered him wine to drink, mixed with gall; but when he tasted it,

26

he would not drink it. 35 And when they had crucified him, they divided his clothesamong themselves by casting lots; 36 then they sat down there and kept watch over him.37 Over his head they put the charge against him, which read, "This is Jesus, the King ofthe Jews."

38 Then two bandits were crucified with him, one on his right and one on his left. 39 Thosewho passed by derided him, shaking their heads 40 and saying, "You who would destroythe temple and build it in three days, save yourself! If you are the Son of God, come downfrom the cross." 41 In the same way the chief priests also, along with the scribes andelders, were mocking him, saying, 42 "He saved others; he cannot save himself. He is theKing of Israel; let him come down from the cross now, and we will believe in him. 43 Hetrusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he wants to; for he said, 'I am God's Son.'" 44The bandits who were crucified with him also taunted him in the same way.

45 From noon on, darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon. 46And about three o'clock Jesus cried with a loud voice, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?"that is, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" 47 When some of thebystanders heard it, they said, "This man is calling for Elijah." 48 At once one of them ranand got a sponge, filled it with sour wine, put it on a stick, and gave it to him to drink. 49But the others said, "Wait, let us see whether Elijah will come to save him." 50 Then Jesuscried again with a loud voice and breathed his last. 51 At that moment the curtain of thetemple was torn in two, from top to bottom. The earth shook, and the rocks were split. 52The tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep wereraised.

Clearly the author of the Gospel called Matthew has copied his version of the crucifixion scene fromMark. However, as is typical throughout Matthew, there are some additional elements to the narrativeas well. Unlike the temple scene, though, in this scene it appears that the author of Matthew didrecognize the literary allusions and went back to them as a source for additional narrative elements. Thereason for this is that elements of the narrative in Matthew clearly refer back to the same literaryallusions that we see in Mark, in particular Matthew 27:51.

Amos 8:7 The Lord has sworn by the pride of Jacob: Surely I will never forget any of theirdeeds.

8 Shall not the land tremble on this account, and everyone mourn who lives in it,and all of it rise like the Nile, and be tossed about and sink again , like the Nile ofEgypt?

9 On that day, says the Lord God, I will make the sun go down at noon,and darken the earth in broad daylight.

The statement that the earth shook and the rocks split coincides with the line in Amos 8 directlypreceding the line about the darkening of the land at noon. It is clear in multiple passage from theGospel called Matthew that the author of Matthew did recognize some of the literary allusions, and

27

when he did he tried to go back to the referenced passages to extend his narrative as well. We see this inMatthew's botched Triumphal Entry scene for example.

Now let's take a look at the crucifixion scene as recorded in Luke.

Luke 23:33 When they came to the place that is called The Skull, they crucified Jesus therewith the criminals, one on his right and one on his left. 34 Then Jesus said, "Father,forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing." And they cast lots to dividehis clothing. 35 And the people stood by, watching; but the leaders scoffed at him,saying, "He saved others; let him save himself if he is the Messiah of God, his chosen one!"36 The soldiers also mocked him, coming up and offering him sour wine, 37 andsaying, "If you are the King of the Jews, save yourself!" 38 There was also an inscriptionover him, "This is the King of the Jews."

39 One of the criminals who were hanged there kept deriding him and saying, "Are you notthe Messiah? Save yourself and us!" 40 But the other rebuked him, saying, "Do you notfear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? 41 And we indeed havebeen condemned justly, for we are getting what we deserve for our deeds, but this man hasdone nothing wrong." 42 Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into yourkingdom." 43 He replied, "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise."

44 It was now about noon, and darkness came over the whole land until three in theafternoon, 45 while the sun's light failed; and the curtain of the temple was torn in two. 46Then Jesus, crying with a loud voice, said, "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit."Having said this, he breathed his last.

Again we can see that the narrative in Luke is copied in some fashion from Mark. The format of thescene is essentially the same and many key textual elements are identical. But, there are significantdifferences as well. In fact, many of the changes significantly alter the meaning of the narrative. InMark clearly the entire population of the Jews is being condemned. All of the people mocked Jesus,and of course that mocking was, itself, part of a literary allusion of Psalm 22. Whoever wrote Luke,however, was clearly sympathetic to the Jewish people and sought to absolve them of "blame" for thecrucifixion, so they wrote that the people merely "stood by", while the leaders mocked Jesus. Inaddition, Luke has the soldiers mocking Jesus, while in Mark it is a Roman soldier who says, "Trulythis man was the son of God!" This has completely changed the meaning of the story, and it would beimpossible to understand the narrative as an allegorical story about the Jews bringing the destruction ofthe Jewish War upon themselves from this alteration of the narrative.

Throughout the Markan version of the story the Jews fail to recognize Jesus as the son of God whileGentiles do. In the Lukan version this entire theme is lost, and in the Lukan version of the crucifixionwe see the Jewish people being absolved of blame while Gentiles take on blame.

The changes to the narrative in Luke are clearly ideologically driven. Instead of the scene ending with aGentile soldier recognizing Jesus as the son of God, it ends with Jesus speaking to God. In Luke theentire scene is turned into a theological message of hope, with the promise to the thieves that they will

28

be with Jesus in Paradise, etc.

But what's clear is that the author of Luke had no knowledge of a real crucifixion event either. If theauthor had, then they wouldn't have copied the core narrative from Mark. The casting of lots, themocking, the tearing of the temple curtain, and the darkness at noon all clearly come directly from thetext of Mark. It's obvious that whoever wrote Luke merely took the passage from Mark and changedkey elements in order to make it more sympathetic to the Jews and less sympathetic to the Gentiles.

From a complete analysis of the Gospel called Luke my conclusion is that the author of Luke mostlikely thought that the Markan text he was copying from was a basically historically true account of areal-life Jesus. It appears that whoever wrote Luke was using multiple sources, including perhapsJosephus and Philo, among others, to piece together what they believed to be a "real historicaldocument." As such, the author of Luke appears to have had no understanding of the literary allusionsin Mark whatsoever. The alterations to the Markan narrative by the author of Luke appear completelyindiscriminate in relation to the literary allusions. The literary allusions are kept, excluded, altered, andreworded in ways that make it clear that there was no attempt to give them any special treatment.

Let's now turn our attention to perhaps the most important other telling of the crucifixion in theGospels, the account in the Gospel called John.

John 19:18 There they crucified him, and with him two others, one on either side, withJesus between them. 19 Pilate also had an inscription written and put on the cross. It read,"Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews." 20 Many of the Jews read this inscription,because the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written inHebrew, in Latin, and in Greek. 21 Then the chief priests of the Jews said to Pilate, "Do notwrite, 'The King of the Jews,' but, 'This man said, I am King of the Jews.'" 22 Pilateanswered, "What I have written I have written." 23 When the soldiers had crucifiedJesus, they took his clothes and divided them into four parts, one for each soldier.They also took his tunic; now the tunic was seamless, woven in one piece from the top.24 So they said to one another, "Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it to see who will getit." This was to fulfill what the scripture says,

"They divided my clothes among themselves, and for my clothing they cast lots."

25 And that is what the soldiers did.

Meanwhile, standing near the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother's sister, Marythe wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26 When Jesus saw his mother and the disciplewhom he loved standing beside her, he said to his mother, "Woman, here is your son." 27Then he said to the disciple, "Here is your mother." And from that hour the disciple tookher into his own home.

28 After this, when Jesus knew that all was now finished, he said (in order to fulfill thescripture), "I am thirsty." 29 A jar full of sour wine was standing there. So they put asponge full of the wine on a branch of hyssop and held it to his mouth. 30 When Jesus

29

had received the wine, he said, "It is finished." Then he bowed his head and gave up hisspirit.

31 Since it was the day of Preparation, the Jews did not want the bodies left on the crossduring the sabbath, especially because that sabbath was a day of great solemnity. So theyasked Pilate to have the legs of the crucified men broken and the bodies removed. 32 Thenthe soldiers came and broke the legs of the first and of the other who had been crucifiedwith him. 33 But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did notbreak his legs. 34 Instead, one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at onceblood and water came out. 35 (He who saw this has testified so that you also may believe.His testimony is true, and he knows that he tells the truth.) 36 These things occurred so thatthe scripture might be fulfilled, "None of his bones shall be broken." 37 And again anotherpassage of scripture says, "They will look on the one whom they have pierced."

The crucifixion scene in John is very important for many reasons. Most importantly it is because theGospel called John is the only Gospel now believed to even potentially be an account independent fromMark. This is because the word-for-word copying from Mark that we see in the Gospels of Matthewand Luke isn't present in John and John contains many additional scenes that don't appear in any of theSynoptic Gospels. However, the problem for the idea that John is independent from Mark comes fromthe fact that while there are a lot of differences, there are also a lot of similarities.

Not only are there key similarities between John and Mark, but just as in the temple scene, many ofthose similarities include story elements that originated as literary allusions in Mark.

Not only does John contain elements of the literary allusions found in Mark, but the author of Johndoes some very interesting things with them as well. Firstly we can see that the author is embellishingthe Markan narrative. We know that the casting of lots for Jesus' clothing didn't really happen, becausethat narrative element is based on a literary allusion. So the fact that John contains this story element,which originated in Mark as a literary allusion, means that the author of John had to have copied hiscrucifixion narrative from the Markan narrative in some fashion. But the author is also now taking thisclearly fictional element and adding to it, with embellished descriptions of how the clothes weredivided, etc., just as they did in the temple scene.

Even more important, however, is the fact that the author then calls out the scriptural reference toPsalm 22 by saying, "This was to fulfill what the scripture says," and then directly quoting from Psalm22 itself. At this point, we know that the author of John was using the Markan narrative and recognizedthe literary allusion to Psalm 22. Then again in line 28 the author shows awareness of the reference toAmos 2 by calling out that scriptural reference as well.

But finally we have the most important aspect of the use of the literary allusions in John, which is line34. Line 34 famously tells us that Jesus' side was pierced and that water flowed out of him. Wheremight this claim come from? Well, it comes from Psalm 22! The author of John, who was clearly awareof the relationship between Psalm 22 and the crucifixion narrative, used additional material from Psalm22 to add to his narrative.

30

Psalm 22:7 All who see me mock at me; they make mouths at me, they shake theirheads;

8 'Commit your cause to the Lord; let him deliver let him rescue the one in whom hedelights!'

9 Yet it was you who took me from the womb; you kept me safe on my mother's breast.

10 On you I was cast from my birth, and since my mother bore me you have been my God.

11 Do not be far from me, for trouble is near and there is no one to help.

12 Many bulls encircle me, strong bulls of Bashan surround me;

13 they open wide their mouths at me, like a ravening and roaring lion.

14 I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint; my heart is like wax;it is melted within my breast;

15 my mouth is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue sticks to my jaws;you lay me in the dust of death.

16 For dogs are all around me; a company of evildoers encircles me. My hands and feethave shriveled;

17 I can count all my bones. They stare and gloat over me;

18 they divide my clothes among themselves, and for my clothing they cast lots.

The piercing of Jesus' side and pouring out of water from the wound clearly comes from line 14 ofPsalm 22. Then, even more interestingly, the author assures us that this is true and it really happened,which, ironically, only draws attention to the dubiousness of the claim.

Again, lets see what the NRSV study Bible has to say about the piercing of Jesus' side:

John 19.34 Why the soldier would pierce Jesus' side is not clear. Various suggestions havebeen made regarding the biological significance of the blood and water, but John's interestis theological, not medical. The flow of blood and water may be meant to demonstrateJesus' true physical humanity.

No. The purpose of the piercing of Jesus' side and the flow of water is explained directly in the text. Itis meant to further support the idea that these events are "fulfilling prophecy", which was understoodby the author of the work to mean correlating with events described in the Hebrew scriptures; in thiscase, to further tie the events of the crucifixion to Psalm 22. And this is what I'm really driving at here.What I am presenting is a completely new framework within which to understand the Gospels. Thetraditional approaches to understanding the Gospels, used by both religious and secular scholars, are all

31

based on a framework which assumes some real world events are the inspiration for the Gospelnarratives, or that the narratives derive from some existing oral tradition or something. In other words,that somehow these events tie back to the real world, even if only to real world gossip.

My understanding of the Gospels is completely different. The framework I use is an understanding thatthe Gospel called Mark was written as a fictional allegorical story invented in the mind of the originalauthor, in which essentially every scene is a literary allusion. Thus, when it comes to understandingpassages in the other Gospels, the very first approach is simply to look for passages in the Hebrewscriptures, a.k.a. "Old Testament", to try and find correlations there, understanding that really, that isthe source for most of these narratives. The approach I use is to first identify if a passage in Matthew,Luke, or John comes from Mark. If it does, then go to the passage in Mark and identify the literaryallusion that was used by the author of Mark. If there are additional details in the other Gospels thatdon't exist in Mark, then refer back to the text of the Hebrew scriptures used by the author of Mark andlook to see how the additional details in the other Gospels may relate to those same passages. In manycases, like the example here, you can quickly see that the additional details likely come from the samepassage used by the author of Mark in the original scene.

I believe that this is occurs because the authors of Matthew and John both identified many of thescriptural references; so what we find is that the authors identified the literary allusions themselves andthen went back to the source texts to embellish their narratives with additional details from the originalliterary allusions, as we see in this example. Sometimes they caught the literary allusions, sometimesthey didn't. It must have been difficult at a time when the only thing you had to go on were memoryand assorted scrolls. The reason I am able to find so many more literary allusions today is because ofcomputers and the ability to do sophisticated searches across all the biblical texts using a variety ortranslations. So even though I'm analyzing these works centuries after the original authors, its actuallyeasier for me and others today than it was for people who lived around the time the works were actuallywritten.

Without trying to over-analyze the situation or try to see too deeply into the minds of the authors, I canonly speculate that the authors of Matthew and John may have believed that the correlat