Scripting Jesus: The Gospels in Rewrite

934 Pages·2010·25.6 MB·English

by  L. Michael White

=
Scripting Jesus
The G ospels i n Rewrite
L. MICHAEL WHITE
= Har erCollins e-books
p
FoBre cki
amoee rternatmuetcntot'meip,ll eto
FoRro ann Kday
semparm• e1• c ca• 1n• s• s1m1
CONTENTS
Preface
Prologue
Scri pt i n g J es u s
The Sto rytel l er's Art
Act
I
Casting Characters
Chapter One
Acting the Part
M essiah
Chapter Two
Logos and Wisdom 's C h i l d
Chapter Th ree
Divine M a n
Chapter Four
Savior
Act
II
Crafting Scenes
Chapter Five
Orality, M e mory, and Performance
Chapter Six
H e ral d i n g the Crucifixion
Chapter Seven
Marking the Passion
Chapter Eight
Casti ng Spel ls
Chapter N i n e
S p i n n i n g Parables
Chapter Ten
Plotting the N ativity
Act
Ill
Staging G ospels
Chapter Eleven
The M i s u n derstood M essiah
The Gospel of Mark
Chapter Twelve
The Ri ghteous Teacher of Torah
The Gospel of Matthew
Chapter T h i rteen
The M a rtyred Sage
The G ospel of Lu ke
Chapter Fourteen
The M a n from H eaven
The Gospels of J o h n and Thomas
Chapter Fifteen
G ospels and M ore Gospels
E p i l ogue
Tales of Fancy, Acts of Faith
Appe n d i ces
A . The G eography of J es u s 's World
B . Solving the Synoptic P roblem
C. The G ospel of Peter
D. A "Tra nscri pt" of Q
E. M appi ng the N a rrative World of Luke
Notes
Ancient Writi ngs I nd ex
S u bj ect I n dex
About the Author
Copyright
About the P u b l i sher
PREAFCE
"Jesus is u n d er fi re." So says a recent book by evangel ical apologists i n
reaction to most, if not a l l , forms of N ew Testament sch olars h i p. At stake,
they argue, are the grou nds of a l l Christian beli ef, the "truth " of the
G ospels. So it seems that the battle l i nes are clear and u n m i stakable: those
who believe vers u s those who d o not. Those who q u estion h i storical
poi nts i n the Ch ristian G ospels or propose a d i fferent vision of what Jesus
sai d on a particu l a r occasion or meant on a given topic are s u m m arily
l u m ped together i n a vast and god l ess army, the enemies of Ch rist and
Ch ristian ity.
B ut the p ictu re is not nearly so s i m p l e ; the l i nes of d e m a rcation, not
nearly so neat. I n fact, the "attack" comes from oth e r angl es now, as th e
d i scovery of several " new" G ospels has fu eled a vari ety of conspi racy theo­
ries concer n i n g the lost "tru th " about J e s u s that has been systematically
s u ppressed by i nstitutional Ch ristian ity. I nevitably, then come the sensa­
tional ist c l a i m s from works of both pseu d o h i story and outright fiction.
One pu rports that J es u s was really m a rri ed to M ary M agd alene, and th ey
had chi ldren. Anoth er recounts the private conversation between J e s u s a n d
J udas and pu rports to give new i ns i ghts about what really led to J es u s 's be­
traya I and crucifixion. Onl y parti al ly, if at a l l , are th ese c l a i m s based on ac­
tual ancient sou rces, a n d even then scholarly study of these d ocum ents i s
sti l l ongoi ng. Nonetheless, the fact that these new G ospels come from th e
early centu ri es of Ch ri sti an ity makes it h a rd for m any people to d i sti ngu ish
the c l a i m s being made. I t also seems nat u ra l to l u m p these more out­
l a n d i s h c l a i m s togeth e r with mai nstream N ew Testament scholars h i p . Af­
ter a l l , the d i scovery and decipherment of these G ospels is a legiti m ate
fi eld of scholarly study, and m u ch of the scholars h i p starts by rea d i ng
closely and rai s i n g q u esti ons.
I n part the prob l em is media hype; i n evitably th ese new d iscove ri es are
presented as u nd e rcutti ng the trad ition contai ned i n the canonical
G ospels. But serious N ew Testa ment sch olars a n d h istorians do not ac­
cept these so-cal l e d revelations as h i storical fact any m ore than u n q ues­
t i o n i n g bel ievers do. Yet the theories get a wide fol l owing. At least th ree of
Gospofe l
th ese new texts have been popular i n recent d i scussions: th e
ThomasG,o spofeM la ry( Magedna,el ) Gospofje uld as.
the and the Signif­
i cantly a l l th ree pu rport to come from close followers of J es u s known from
the canonical G ospels. So where d i d they come from , and what is th e i r
role? And d o they rea l ly offer u s a new " h istory" or a n alternative portrait of
J esus?
The answer i s no, and real sch olars h i p d oes not read these works i n
q u ite the way s u ggested by either sensation a l i sts or conservative apolo­
gists. Th us, although it is i mportant to recogn ize and d i scuss the place of
th ese "other" Gospels, they do not generally provide serious h i storical
i nformati on. I n fact, as we s h a l l see later i n t h i s book, they are m o re l i ke
later theological explorations, each written from a d i sti nct some wou ld
say " h eretical" perspective. I n that sense, one may call them pious fabri­
cati ons from early Ch risti a n i ty. Studyi ng them h e l ps us u n d e rstand the na­
t u re of storytel l i n g as theological enterprise d u ring the early Christian pe­
riod and refocus some of the q u estions regard i n g the canonical G ospels.
The fact that they were con s i d e red h eretical by oth er early C h ri stians and
eventu ally excluded i n the formation of the N ew Testament i s also a part of
the story that m u st be u n d erstood . But they were not the only pious fabri­
cations about J esus i n a nt i q u ity; t h e re were oth e rs that have not been treat­
ed so critical ly. The p ro b l e m , then, is how to fi nd o u r way th rough the
m aze of op inions and q u estions conce r n i n g Jesus and the G ospels when
the ancient sources d iffer so d ramatica l l y.
QuesntiintohgGe o spels
Q u estions about J esus and the G ospels get raised i n one way or anoth er i n
m ost form s of Christian ity. They have done so for centuries, not to men­
tion serving as the basis for key d ifferences of bel ief a n d i nterpretation be­
tween denomi nations. N o r is it merely a case of i ntra-Christian d ialo gue
and d ebate. J ewish trad ition has a stake i n the d i scussion too, not only be­
cause t h e h i sto rical Jesus h i mself was J ewi s h , but also because of the
atrocities that have been pe rpetrated based on m isre a d i n g and m i s i nter­
preti ng these same scriptu res. One can not respond s i m p l istica l ly to the
H oloca u st by sayi ng, "Sorry," without also a d d ressing the scri ptural and
th eological ass u m p tions mostly m a i n stream Christian and oste nsibly
based on the New Testament that fueled it. I gnoring s u ch factors is
but
tantam o u nt to saying i n stea d , "So rry it went that far, . . . " I f J e s u s seems
to be " u nder fi re" these days because of atrocities perpetrated i n h i s name
or suspicions that certai n fo rms of Christ i a n i ty are not w i l l i ng to probe for
the truth, then it i s not J e s u s who i s to blam e, or the G ospels, but rather
th ose who have m isused them .
Even so, the majority of New Testament sch olars are, i n fact, believing
Ch ristians. Some are more conservative, to be s u re; others, m ore l i bera l .
M ore to the po int, most of the q uestions that scholars pose and the meth­
ods they have developed for d e a l i n g with them come from the efforts of
serious bel ievers who have d i scovered vari ous difficu lties th rough a close
throruaegdhit nhgGe o spels
read i n g of the G ospels themselves. Th at's right:
clloys.e
N ow, a l l so rts of q u estions are raised by people, ord i n a ry fol k and schol­
a rs a l i ke, when rea d i n g the G ospels. Why i s it that the Beatitu des differ so
m arkedly i n the G ospels of M atthew and Luke? Why i s it that the b i rth of
J esus is set i n a manger (l iterally a "feed i n g trough ") i n Luke , but a house
i n M atthew? H ow i s it that the G ospels (and oth er pa rts of the N ew Testa­
m ent) s u ggest that J es u s had brothers and si sters? And there are many
m ore.
Why does the G ospel of J o h n place the "clean s i n g of the Tem­
•
ple" at the begi n n i n g of J es us's p u b l i c career (2 : 1 2-22) , w h i l e
the Synoptics (M atth ew, M ark, and Lu ke) place it i n the last
week of J es us's l ife (Mark 1 1 : 1 5-1 9; M att 2 1 : 1 0-1 7; L u ke 1 9 :45-
48) ?
Why is it that the G ospels of M a r k and M atthew d escribe an
•
after
anointing of J esus the tri u m p hal entry i nto J erusalem at
nearby Beth any ( M a r k 14:3-9; M att 26:6-1 3) , wh i l e the G ospel
of Lu ke places the same event m u ch earlier i n h i s p u b l i c career,
when J e s u s was sti l l i n the G a l i lee (7: 36-so) . All th ree of these
G ospels set the story i n the home of a certai n S i m on, d escri bed
by M ark and M atthew as a leper, but by Luke as a P h a risee. I n
a l l t h ree, the anointing i s performed by an u n named wom a n ;
only Luke cal l s her a " s i n ner." The G ospel of J oh n h a s a s i m i la r
episode ( 1 2 : 1-8) that occurs just six days b efore J e s u s's d eath
bfeore
and at Bethany; h owever, it comes h i s tri u m p ha l entry and
at the house of h i s friends M ary, M arth a, and Lazarus. S i gn if­
icantly, it is t h i s M a ry from Bethany who performs th e anoi nt­
i n g. (Later trad itions i d e ntify h e r erroneously with M a ry M agd a­
lene, that is , M a ry of M agdala, i n the G a l i lee) .
One can see rather q u ickly that such episodes i n the G ospels are essen­
tially the same, and yet they a re told i n d i fferent ways and occur at different
poi nts i n the story of J e s u s 's career.
I t is not my goal at t h i s j u n ct u re to a d d ress any of these i n d iv i d u a l cases
as s u c h . M ost of them w i l l come u p aga i n i n later parts of t h i s book. For
now, my fi rst poi nt is si mply t h i s : raising q uestions about the G ospels or
not at­
the h i sto rical J esus is i n and of itself an act of d i s b e l i ef. Nor i s it an
tack
on J es u s or on Ch risti anity i n general. Q u ite the contrary. To raise
such q u estions i s a d i rect result of taking the G ospels seriously and tryi ng