More Mary Martha and Lazarus

by peacefulpete 12 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  peacefulpete

  In a previous thread discussing the Rich Man and Lazarus parable in Luke, the relationship of this parable to the Lazarus resurrection story arose. As I said in that thread I'm pretty convinced that the writer of John fleshed out this character in the Rich Man& Lazarus parable into a narrative featuring a man named Lazarus. The reasons essentially are:

  1. The person of Lazarus John has created in the resurrection of Lazarus story is unknown by any of the previous three forms of the Gospel he used as source material. Which quite unlikely if this was a previously known tradition due to the significance of the scene and a purported close relationship with Jesus, ("the one you love")

  2. The Lazarus parable features the appeal to be resurrected and the John story is all about resurrection.

  3. The rich man has been identified as symbolizing the religious elite (Scribes and Pharisees) and his appeal to return to earth to convince his "brothers" to believe in Jesus is rebuffed because "they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead." In the John story, that is precisely was happens, someone rises from the dead but the Scribes and Pharisees are not convinced and plot Jesus' death.

  This literary relationship has long been seen and I feel the evidence speaks strongly that the author of G.John was adapting the Lukan parable into a narrative, something done in the gospel tradition in a number of instances.

  OK.. Now to share something I hadn't remembered when I last posted. The manuscript evidence that in fact the two sisters named Mary and Martha may originally have been just a single character Mary.

  Yes Luke 10 depicts a Martha and Mary in "a village" who had a house. I had assumed the author John had drawn from this Lukan story for his chapter 11 Lazarus story. That may not have been the case. Elisabeth Schrader has made some interesting connections by using the earliest textual tradition and perceiving a pattern. (Evangelical Textual Criticism: Elisabeth Schrader)

  In short, the manuscripts may be revealing a problem with the names and characters in John 11, specifically surrounding the character Mary/aka Maria. The first clue was a big one, the oldest manuscript (P66) of John displays a deliberate editing out of the name Maria to Martha, (one letter, iota to theta). It also shows a deliberate redaction from "Mary" to "the sisters" at verse 3. The manuscript variations in this chapter are many,(hundreds of variations in defining the characters) and most may be best explained by a deliberate diminishing of the role of this Mary (who Schrader identifies as Mary Magdelene) and the spitting of one character into two. The Luke 10 (Mary and Martha's house) episode facilitating the transformation.

  There are perfectly plausible explanations of each and every particular issue E. Schrader has compiled so there is no necessity to assume she is correct, (The Text of the Gospels: Mary, Martha, and John 11) however her thesis does offer a plausible explanation for a wide number of issues in the manuscript evidence.

  It is also a bit peculiar the way the John 11:2 interruption anticipates the anointing feet scene in chapter 12. It is almost as if the anointing scene was displaced to appear right after the Lazarus resurrection scene closer to Jesus's death or we have an editorial interpolation as verse 2.

  Thoughts?
• 

  Bobcat

  Hi PeacefulPete,

  Here is a post I made on another site on the topic of a possible relationship between the Rich man & Lazarus parable and the resurrection of Lazarus.

  And as a 'plot twist' not mentioned in your post, my link has a link to a thread discussing the idea that John was not the writer of the 4th gospel. See the last paragraph in my linked post for a link to that.

  Well, you asked for "thoughts." There is mine. Thanks for the links in your post. I'll check them out.
• 

  peacefulpete

  Hey Bobcat. I read your article and it is pretty clear we are not coming at the topic from the same perspective.

  Sometimes for the sake of brevity I may use language that might appear to be suggesting historicity but that clearly was not the anonymous authors' focus. The freeness to invent and reimagine OT and Jesus stories displayed in Jewish and Christian writings requires we understand these as works of faith and polemics not historical records. Even if the writers assumed a historical kernel within some stories they felt no restraint when utilizing the material. Further, the manuscript evidence reveals not only scribal error and displacement but deliberate attempts at harmonization and editing.

  Simply said I see the author of John engaging in reimagining the Lukan parable as a narrative. I'm convinced there is enough points of connection to make that identification.

  It's similar to the fig tree parable known to the author of (Luke 8)as a parable but Mark reimagined as a narrative acted out by Jesus (Mark 11). The author of Mark apparently was the first to do this then the author of Matt took Mark's narrative and modified it considerably to match his ideals of Jesus and to fit the flow of his story (Matt 21). To further illustrate the processes the Apocalypse of Peter (early to mid 2nd CE and regarded as scripture in the Muratorian Fragment.) includes the fig tree pericope in parable form but has further elaborated upon and added dialog (narrative) between Jesus and Peter. ( The Apocalypse of Peter (translation by M. R. James) (earlychristianwritings.com) Ethiopic fragment.

  Take this one example and repeat a similar process hundreds of times and you have a picture of how the Gospels took their form. Also, trying to harmonize the Gospels geographically and chronologically is a doomed task without extensive creativity.

  Its my view that Mark was intended to be understood as parable from beginning to end, he clarifies early that initiated Christians alone could understand the meaning in his writing. Whether the authors/revisers of Matt Luke also wrote with this mystery approach or had they made the mistake of simply reading it as a narrative (but still had no qualms modifying it as a teaching tool) I'm not sure. It seems to me that the added legend and embellishments they bring to the story betray a more orthodox understanding.
• 

  HowTheBibleWasCreated

  I disagree.. I believe John predates the synoptic gospels. The next gospel I believe was 'The Gospel of the Lord' a predecessor to Luke. In chapter 16 of Luke is the rich man and Lazarus. Note this post dates John. The author assumes Lazarus died and has the rich man beg for him to return. Also the mention of five brothers fits a verse in John 11 about men who wanted to kill Lazarus.
• 

  peacefulpete

  HTBWC...I have sympathy for that position but it should be clarified. The Johannine priority hypothesis suggests large parts of the book are later redactions with a core of 'gnostic like' symbolisms and metaphor. It's true the work as we have it betrays heavy editing and interpolation, perhaps even more than can be convincingly argued. In effect what the hypothesis says is that much of the narrative we are discussing was post Synoptic, which really then doesn't negate the process we were discussing. Anyway, I'm sympathetic as I said, as I see the origins of Christianity in the mystery religion tradition through the Essenes. But ultimately for discussions of literary dependence of individual pericopes the Johannine priority hypothesis doesn't really matter if the narrative was secondary anyway.

  And yes I see the "brothers" of the "rich man" as fellow Pharisees and that adds to the argument of literary relationship.
• 

  peacefulpete

  I should have also said that the direction of dependence isn't of greatest importance either. If the author/redactor of G.John was in fact the source for the Lukan parable, (which you seem to be suggesting and which is not impossible), the relationship still reveals the methods of these authors.
• 

  peacefulpete

  <

  I missed the comment about Apostle John not being the writer of G John. I think that is widely recognized by critical scholarship. It was debated by prominent Christians for centuries. The best answer IMO when debating those who insist upon an Apostle John as being the author is 21: 24

  This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.

  Clearly "we" means a group of people who are ostensibly using works supplied by "the disciple" . G.John at least as we have it, is a community work. That's why those who used it are referred to as a Johannine Christians. Interesting of course is the most basic question of authorship, the community that produced G.John as we now call it, themselves never said John much less identifying which John as there were a number. I think you mentioned the possibility that the work was intended to be understood as a work of Lazarus or Mary Magdelene (pseudepigraphically in both cases) the one identified so clearly as the one Jesus loved. I like the hypothesis, it's letting the text speak for itself. Likely the guy living a couple hundred years later that gave all the titles to the Gospels (one person a did this as is evident by all titles being identical in construction and use of unusual word "according to") thought it was John.
  

  
  
  
• 

  JoenB75

  I love the fact that the gospels have different takes on various doctrine. Christology of John is unique. But the Jesus of John is clear the old testament testified of him
• 

  HowTheBibleWasCreated

  Joen I would like to see where the old testament prophecies of Jesus are fulfilled in John. See my hypothesis for the NT (which is months away in my book) is Marcionite priority. However I believe the Gospel of John is also Gnostic and predates the synoptics. I have noted reading John that although Jesus is defiantly the messiah to the Jews and was indeed prophesied in the Hebrew Bible I think his 'father' was not YHWH. I'm interested in hearing your comments.
• 

  HowTheBibleWasCreated

  peacefulpete

  For point one: Luke 16 and John 11 are to similar.For point 2:I agreeFor point 3 I agree.I have not yet investigated the army of Marys in the gospels. There are almost too many to count. However if John is first (As I have so far been able to place it) the two sister are repeated only in Luke with the dumbest parable of the one working and the other listening. This to me suggests Marcionite origin following John. around 120 CE maybe.
  The other two gospels are trash in my opinion. Mark is an apocalyptical work that cares not about previous stories and moves through then with such speed that they lack any meaning. Matthew is a good gospel but it should be labeled 'the Jewish Gospel against the Gnostics'. These two do make Martha and Mary fuse together and possible other Mary's too. The point you make has again added another argument for my second century origin of the gospels.