Reading Wright, RSG, Chapter 9
Hope Refocused (1): Gospel Traditions Outside the Easter Narratives
I continue The Resurrection of the Son of God in Chapter 9, pp. 401-49. This chapter begins Part 3: Resurrection Outside of Paul and works through the gospel material on resurrection that occur outside of the Easter narratives. For example, Jesus discussing his upcoming death and resurrection.
Wright notes at the beginning of the topic that there is not a lot of resurrection material in these sections (p. 402). To put it rather bluntly, resurrection doesn’t seem like a main emphasis for Jesus. Rather, Jesus was primarily focused on the kingdom of God (p. 403). Thus, for a subject so crucial for Christianity, the pre-Easter content is rather sparse. In other words, if the resurrection were invented, one might think there would be more material. That said, arguments from silence are weak at best.
I must step back briefly and walk through a bit of current theory on gospel composition (“source criticism”). The main consensus (which Wright agrees) is that Mark is composed first (50s), followed by Matthew and Luke concurrently but independently (60s), and then much later, John (90s). Matthew and Luke use Mark as a source, along with another (written?) source (“Q”) that we don’t have. This is assumed because there is significant material that is identical between Matthew and Luke that does not occur in Mark and the working assumption is Matthew and Luke did not use each other. Thus:
Mark » probably uses Peter as his source (via Papias)
Matthew » uses Mark + “Q” + Matthew’s own material
Luke » uses Mark + “Q” + Luke’s research
John
Because Mark is used as the source for Matthew and Luke, at least 92% of Mark is repeated in Matthew and/or Luke (estimates go as high as 96%). Matthew contains 29% unique material; Luke contains 50% unique; and there are about 250 verses that are identical between Matthew and Luke but are not in Mark (this is where “Q” comes in). And our later Gospel writer, John, comes in at around 90%+ unique material! (The synoptic numbers come from Studying the Historical Jesus: A Guide to Sources and Methods by Darrell L. Bock) You might think of the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) as cameras of a football game located on the left, center, and right sides of the field all focused on the play. John is a camera pointed at the coach!
Why is this relevant? Because Wright will start with Mark and work his way through in composition order with the unique material. Thus, passages in Mark (pp. 404-29) repeated in Luke (and/or Matthew) will be treated in Mark with a note on Luke/Matthew’s reference, noting any differences between the Gospels. The Luke + Matthew (“Q”) passages will be discussed (pp. 429-34) followed by Matthew only (pp. 434-5), Luke only (pp. 435-39), and finally, John (pp. 440-48).
I would summarize this chapter by suggesting Wright is arguing the resurrection material is both consistent with Second Temple Jewish expectations as well as contains the seed that will allow greater understanding after Jesus’ resurrection. Much of the content is functioning as a model for what has been and is to come, but you don’t get the latter until Easter.
Take for instance the raising of the young girl in Mark 5:21-43 (also in Matthew and Luke). Who else raises the dead? Elijah and Elisha! So Jesus is performing the actions of (significant) prophets of Israel—a model of what has been. Wright observes that following her raising, the reaction is one of astonishment and Jesus commands that something be given her to eat—the same reaction of the women upon seeing Jesus’ empty tomb and when Jesus asks his disciples for something to eat—a model for what is to come (p. 405).
Another passage that seems to have a tight Second Temple background is Jesus’ discussions on what one is willing to give up for the kingdom of God, specifically the cutting off of hands, feet, and eye (Mark 9:43-47). Wright includes passages from Mark 8:34-38 and Mark 10:29-31 (p. 405-6). It hit me that this has the Maccabean background and one page later, Wright noted this as well (p. 407): the martyrdom of a mother and her seven sons in 2 Maccabees 7. Both the mother and sons are faithful under torture, having body parts cut off and being ‘separated’ from each other through death (at least from Antiochus’ thinking). This Maccabean story is one of the clearest passages of the expectations of a physical resurrection in the Second Temple texts—as body parts are about to be cut off, the brothers assert that God will give them back in the resurrection (7:11, 23). It would be worth reading the linked Maccabees chapter and then reading the Marcan references. Jesus is promising that kind of resurrection to his followers. That is quite a claim!
Finally, the reason the disciples don’t understand Jesus’ pre-Easter claims to die and rise again is because of the first-century Jewish expectations of both Messiah and the resurrection. The resurrection was a one-time end-of-the-age event that occurred for all of the righteous people. For Jesus to speak of his own resurrection, separate from the general resurrection, was not a category that existed for them in their ‘thought space.’ Of course Jesus, the good teacher, would be one of those who rises again at the end-of-the-age. But what do you do with that ‘in three days’ qualifier? What on earth does he mean? It only becomes evident after the resurrection. Paul will speak of Jesus as being the prototype in Colossians 1:18. As John the Baptist was the one who went ahead of Jesus, Jesus is the one who ‘goes ahead’ of all those in Him.
In the next chapter, Wright will focus on the non-Gospel and non-Pauline resurrection passages in the New Testament.