Quotessence
Home / Books / The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man: How Reliable is the Gospel Tradition?

The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man: How Reliable is the Gospel Tradition?

Book by Robert M. Price · 2 quotes · Bible, Jesus, New Testament

Filter quotes by topic

AllBibleJesusNew TestamentBible StudyJesus ChristBiblical CriticismChristianityChristologyGospel Of MarkGospelsTheologyBaptismBiblicalEarly ChristianityFaithGospel Of LukeGospel Of MatthewHellJesus MinistryJohn The Baptist

The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man: How Reliable is the Gospel Tradition? Quotes

“Jesus is shown healing the blind in Mark 8:22-26. This episode is especially remarkable in that it has Jesus employ common magical healing techniques ("Here's mud in your eye!"), something Matthew and Luke did not care for and so omitted. Equally notable is the fact that the healed man does not recover his sight all at once. Jesus has to try again before sight is fully restored. Some critics have understood this detail as symbolic of the two stages of the awakening of the disciples' faith. They see the truth clearly enough to heed Jesus' call to follow, and yet they have no understanding of his divine fate till the end. Their spiritual blindness, then, would have cleared up in two stages. If we accept this interpretation, we are pretty much saying Mark created the detail. [...] My guess is that it is a Markan creation, drawing upon magical techniques that were commonenough knowledge in order to make it seem authentic. He thought no more of having Jesus have to try again than he did of having him repent in baptism. His Christology was not "high" enough for any of this to be an embarrassment [...] Matthew would never have created such a story, true, but Mark saw nothing wrong with it.”

JesusMagicBibleJesus ChristMiraclesNew TestamentGospel Of MarkGospel Of MatthewJesus Ministry
Book:The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man: How Reliable is the Gospel Tradition?
Create image

“As Strauss demonstrated with inescapable lucidity many decades ago, the two nativity stories of Matthew and Luke disagree at almost every point, one exception being the location of Jesus' birth in Bethlehem. [...] Matthew assumes Jesus was born in the home of Mary and Joseph in Bethlehem, and that they only relocated to Nazareth in Galilee after taking off for Egypt to avoid Herod the Great's persecution. Luke knows nothing of this but instead presupposes that Mary and Joseph lived in Galilee and "happened" to be in Bethlehem when the hour struck for Jesus' birth because the Holy Couple had to be there to register for a Roman taxation census. [...] For the moment, my point is to suggest that Luke and Matthew both seem to have been winging it, just as they did with their genealogies. They began with an assumption and tried to connect the dots. This time, their common assumption was that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Whence this assumption? Was there historical memory that Jesus was born there? Hardly; if there had been, we cannot account for Mark's utter lack of knowledge of the fact. No, it seems much more natural, much less contrived, to suggest that Matthew and Luke alike simply inferred from their belief in Jesus' Davidic lineage that he must have been born in Bethlehem. [...] Matthew and Luke both placed the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem because they mistakenly thought prophecy demanded it. They went to work trying to connect the dots with narrative or historical verisimilitude, but with limited success.”

JesusJesus ChristBiblicalBible StudyGospel Of MarkNativity Of Christ
Book:The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man: How Reliable is the Gospel Tradition?
Create image