Last Time:

THE QUEST FOR THE HISTORICAL PAUL (Part 5/8: Literary – Beyond the Historicism/Mythicism Debate)

Now

To recapitulate, while Paul is written in role as an early 1^st century apocalyptic Jew, the apocalyptism to the contrary also makes sense post 70 CE of Mark 13, and even as the apocalyptism of post Bar Kokhba as figurative and rhetorical: “The end is near so you better get right with God and start loving one another!”).  1 Thessalonians 2:13-16 thus, as FC Baur and Berman note, speaks of the wrath of God already having been poured out on the Jews.  1 Corinthians 3:13-18 also speaks of not worshipping God in buildings that are subject to the flame, but the temple of God was inside, which would make sense if the temple had already been destroyed.  It would also make literary sense here of the Jews killing Christ in the Thessalonians passage which can be combined with the corrupt trial of Jesus by the Jewish elite and so the corrupt Jews are being blamed from a post Bar Kokhba retrospective for the destruction of the temple and the exiling of the Jews from the land by God because of what they did to Jesus.  Matthew too speaks of the blood of Jesus being on the Jews.

Price notes Romans refers to the Jews’ table has become a stumbling block, which plausibly could mean the altar in the Jerusalem temple is gone.  The idea in Paul and Hebrews seems to be we no longer need the temple because we have the heavenly high priest.  This is very similar to rabbinical ruminations about “what are we going to do now the temple is over with?”  The problem is how can you make sacrifices if the temple is gone?  Maybe you can substitute acts of mercy or working it off …

White does not find reason to dismiss 1 Thessalonians 2:13-16 as an interpolation.  For him Paul seems to be an apocalyptic Jew navigating through other Jews like the pharisees, Essenes, he says he is not of the Christ group, etc., and we know from the Dead Sea Scrolls these groups were always going after one another as to who the true people of God are.  It is certainly possible Paul speaking among gentiles to speak badly of Jews he thought killed Christ.  Paul thought the apocalypse was underway, he says the resurrected Christ being the first fruits of the general resurrection harvest of souls at the end of the age, so he thought the judgment of the enemies of God had begun, and so need not refer to post-70 CE destruction of Jerusalem.  But if the letters are post 70 CE, this passage fits nicely.   Relatedly, Dr. Joel Marcus points out that Paul says the Jews are beloved by God because they come from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but enemies of God for rejecting Jesus and his message (Romans 11:28). This passage basically summarizes the whole of Mark.

John the Baptist, who Jesus called the greatest among men and whose humiliating death (which contradicts the Josephus account) is a literary pair Jesus’s more humiliating death, anticipates Jesus’ own ignoble death as a criminal where God’s especially beloved agapetos was given a more tortuous but analogous death to the arch enemy of the Jews Haman.  God gave his most beloved and righteous man and the world turned on him in the worst possible way. This explains God’s wrath destroying the temple (70 CE) and booting the Jew from the land (Bar Kokhba).

In the Old Testament, the prophet Jeremiah is a strong example of this. He was called by God to speak truth to Judah’s corrupt leaders and people, warning them of impending judgment. Despite his righteousness and fidelity to God’s message, he faced relentless hostility—mocked, beaten, imprisoned, and nearly killed (Jeremiah 20:7-10, 26:8-11, 38:6). The ruling class and populace turned on him for his uncompromising stance, much like John the Baptist’s fate for condemning Herod’s sins.  God is depicted as warning the people of Judah through Jeremiah about impending judgment if they did not repent from idolatry, injustice, and disobedience. When they failed to heed these warnings, the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem in 587 BCE—resulting in the destruction of the Temple and the exile of many Jews to Babylon—is presented as divine punishment (Jeremiah 25:8-11, 52:12-30). The text explicitly links this catastrophe to their refusal to listen to Jeremiah and other prophets (Jeremiah 7:24-26, 44:4-6).  If you can imagine a crime so horrendous that the temple cult would be rendered of no effect in its wake, it would be the world turning on God’s beloved favorite Jesus.  We thus see an ambiguity of whether the temple cult was nullified by godly substitutionary atonement as traditionally thought by some commentators, or because the world did the worst thing possible making the temple cult of no effect: the withering of the fig tree. No sacrifice could address the monstrosity of what was done to God’s beloved Jesus.

It didn’t need to have happened to make the literary point, but if the story had actually happened historically and God had sent his especially beloved (agapetos) messenger (angelos) into the world, this is what the Jews/Romans would have done to Jesus, orchestrating an analogous but worse fate for him than the arch enemy of the Jews Haman.  Just another failed messianic claimant.  The key is to think beyond what Jesus did to what the world did to Jesus. 

Socrates’ last words in the Phaedo are to offer a prayer of thanksgiving for the poison.  On the one hand this is thankfulness for release from the prison (sema) of the body (soma), and on the other hand it is a moral influence death.  And it worked.  Civilized society no longer executes someone for being a gadfly.  The death of Socrates according to Plato is like the impaled just man in the Republic whose death is preferable to an unjust life because it makes society’s inconspicuous sinful nature conspicuous and hence is the catalyst to transform society. This is like the plot of the children’s movie “The Dog Who Stopped the War.” 

 The Dog Who Stopped the War (1984) is a Canadian children’s film set in a small Quebec town during Christmas break. A group of kids, led by “General Luc,” a bossy boy, and Marc, who owns a St. Bernard named Cléo, split into two rival gangs for an epic snowball fight. Luc’s team attacks a massive snow fortress designed by the genius François and defended by Marc’s group. Tensions escalate as the “war” consumes the children, with strategies like ink-filled snowballs causing chaos. The conflict culminates in tragedy when Cléo dies in a fort collapse, prompting the kids to end their rivalry, mourn together, and dismantle the fortress, realizing the futility of their conflict.

The film illustrates that it sometimes takes a tragedy to reveal the destructive nature of vices like pride, rivalry, and aggression. The children’s obsession with their snowball war mirrors adult conflicts, driven by ego and competition. Luc’s domineering leadership and Sophie’s reckless tactics (e.g., ink snowballs) escalate tensions, leading to Cléo’s death. This loss shocks the kids into recognizing the senselessness of their feud, uniting them in grief and teaching them that “war, war, that’s no reason to hurt one another.” The tragedy exposes the harm in their actions, fostering peace and friendship, and serves as an allegory for the vanity of war.  The dog is a type of Christ who is killed though innocent/sinless amidst the vices of the children.

We can thus reimagine Isaiah 53 beyond a substitutionary atonement reading.  One way is the nations of the world coming to see how poorly they treated Israel.  Many Jewish interpretations of Isaiah 53 support this view. The “suffering servant” as Israel could symbolize the nations of the world recognizing their mistreatment of the Jewish people, who endured suffering and persecution. In this reading, the servant’s vindication (Isaiah 53:10-12) reflects a future where the nations acknowledge Israel’s role and God’s covenant, seeing their past hostility as unjust. Verses like 53:5 (“he was wounded for our transgressions”) are often understood as Israel bearing the consequences of others’ sins, with the nations later awakening to this truth. This aligns with traditional Jewish exegesis, such as Rashi’s, emphasizing Israel’s collective suffering and eventual redemption, Jesus not being so much an individual but representing Israel.  1 Peter, like Mark, alludes to Isaiah 53, which is commonly referred to as substitutionary, but Rillera counters:

Second, the use of Isa 53 is neither evidence for “atonement” nor for “substitution.” All of the NT quotations from Isa 53, except Matt 8:17 (see below), come from the LXX.621 While in the Hebrew MT Isa 53:10 has “the one who gave his life as a redemption of debt” the LXX reads “the Lord wanted to cleanse him from the blow; if you offer sin offerings, then your souls will see eternal offspring.” Shauf highlights how “[u]nlike in the Hebrew … here [in the LXX] the servant does not suffer to redeem others; rather, God desires to rescue him from his suffering” and “it is the audience who is encouraged to offer a sacrifice for its own sin. Moreover, the reception of the Suffering Servant song in Isa 52:13-53:12, as attested in Daniel, Wisdom of Solomon, Romans, Revelation, and 1 Clement, establishes that the Servant was understood as a paradigm for all the suffering righteous. Isaiah 53 is read as the “script” for what it looks like for the righteous/just to live in an unjust/unrighteous world All this confirms that Isa 53 was read as a paradigmatic script for what living righteously in an unrighteous world will entail (suffering, probably martyrdom, but ultimately vindication to resurrected life). (2024, p. 246)

The whole sacrificial system is being rethought in recent literature, which helps us narrow in on Paul.  Certain Jewish scholarship has the idea that the horrific death of the scapegoat reflects getting people to consider the effects of their sin, animal sacrifice being otherwise done humanely.  Recent scholars like Andrew Rillera and Gary Anderson note the sacrificial system wasn’t substitutionary at all.  Rillera comments regarding Paul:

Moreover, the fact that the resurrection is the basis for “dealing with sins” (cf. 1 Cor 15:3) is made clear in 1 Cor 15:17: “If Christ has not been raised … you are still in your sins.” If it was Jesus’s death alone that dealt with sins in some substitutionary way, then the consequence of Jesus not being resurrected would not be that humans are still in their sins (15:17). It would be something like: Well, your sins are dealt with (forgiven/cleansed/whatever concept you wish to place here), but we still do not know what is going to happen for sure after your body perishes (but most of us Jews believe in some sort of bodily resurrection of the dead so let us hope for that for Jesus and everyone else on judgment day; and let’s just be glad we do not have to worry about being damned for our sins). Paul is consistent with this emphasis upon Jesus’s resurrection as dealing with sins in Rom 4. First, he equates justification with forgiveness in Rom 4:6-7 in his only use of aphiemi (“forgiveness”) in the (undisputed) Pauline letters denoting divine forgiveness of sins (and he is quoting its use in LXX PS 31:1-2). Second, in Rom 4:25 he states that Jesus “was raised on account of our justification” immediately after saying “he was delivered over on account of our transgressions.” Thus, as with 1 Cor 15:3, 17, it is the resurrection that effects “dealing with sins.” If there is no resurrection, then, according to Paul, you are not justified/forgiven (Rom 4:6-7, 25b) and you are still in your sins (1 Cor 15:7). Therefore, in the same way that Jesus’s resurrection is “for the benefit of” (hyper) others and no one attempts to conceptualize it as a substitution, I do not think Paul is conceptualizing Jesus’s death as a substitution in these passages either. The two go together hand in hand. The death and resurrection of Jesus are “for” others only to the extent that others are joined with them (e.g., 1 Cor 15:22; Rom 6:3-8)…. What is made clear in Rom 5-8 is that Jesus’s death is a benefit to others only to the extent that they participate in it (e.g., 6:5)!… Therefore, if one is united with Jesus’s death (co-crucifixion), then one can walk in the newness of life a life of obedience like his by putting to death the deeds of the flesh and be assured of one’s own co-resurrection as well…. Not only is there no such thing as substitutionary death sacrifice in the Torah, but also everything in the NT texts is aimed at grounding the exhortation for the audience to be conformed and transformed into the cruciform image of Jesus by sharing in his death… (Rillera, 2024, p. 267)

Vinzent notes that with the early church fathers no one writing about the religion mentions the resurrection of Jesus until Paul starts getting written about.  For example, our earliest catechism, the Didache, doesn’t mention the resurrection.  The same is true of The Shepherd of Hermas.  This is further evidence to the later nature (than the Didache, etc.) of the Pauline letters given the centrality to Paul’s message of the resurrection in 1 Cor 15:17, the Corinthian Creed, etc.  We thus have traditions preserved in Mark of salvation happening apart from cross/resurrection theology as Ehrman notes.   The gospel begins with a call to repentance, there is the story of the sheep and goats, the story of the rich young ruler, but also the soldier’s transformation declaring Jesus the son of God at the cross. 

This makes sense historically because Paul claimed to be a pharisee of pharisees, and the pharisees were idiosyncratic among the Jews believing in a final resurrection, and the pharisees introduced this pagan-like idea following the time of Alexander when some Jews were synchronizing their beliefs with Greek, Zoroastrian, and Roman theology.  These items may have been absent from the Judaism of the Jesus.   The majority of tombstones in the time of Jesus do not reflect belief in an afterlife because the Torah says we only live on through our male kids.  If the Christians were recruited from Jews who believed in the Torah rather than the later prophets, this makes sense of why the resurrection is missing from the Didache and the Shepard of Hermas.  The Apostle’s Creed likewise in the manuscripts in the fathers is in one tradition integrated into the baptism, but in another tradition only has he was born and suffered, not baptism/resurrection.  For 200 years we only had this non-resurrection version.  The resurrection of Jesus only entered into the creed in the 4th century.  For us, Easter was a celebration of the resurrection, but originally it was the celebration of Christ’s suffering.  The gospels, Acts, and Paul seem to be superimposing a pharisaic understanding of Jesus’ resurrection back onto a tradition that lacked it, and so it would make sense the letters postdate Acts because in the Corinthian Creed/poetry Paul says the Jerusalem apostles before him place the resurrection at the beginning of the faith, though importantly Paul identifies the resurrection in the creed with a fictive haggadic midrash scriptural base like the crucifixion with Psalms, 2^nd Isaiah and Deuteronomy, Paul possibly commenting on Matthew on the resurrection understood with Jonah being 3 days in the stomach of the great fish. 

We see Mark creatively solving the problem that Jesus must have known about the resurrection but taught it to simpleton disciples who didn’t understand, which makes sense of the disciples in Mark carrying weapons and getting violent at the arrest as though they had no idea the death and resurrection were part of God’s plan.  

Q as an earlier source than Mark uses crucifixion language though not as though it is significant in any way and lacks the idea of the resurrection.  Q lacks narrative elements like the passion story or resurrection accounts, which are prominent in the canonical Gospels (Mark, Matthew, Luke, John).  The material common to Matthew and Luke (Q’s basis) consists mostly of sayings (logia), not extended narratives.  Neither Matthew nor Luke shares verbatim crucifixion or resurrection details beyond what’s derived from Mark, suggesting these events weren’t in Q.  Q’s focus appears to be Jesus’ teachings and ministry, not his death or post-resurrection appearances.  However, some argue Q might imply a crucifixion context indirectly (e.g., sayings about persecution or “taking up the cross,” like Matthew 10:38/Luke 14:27). Resurrection is less evident, as Q’s eschatology emphasizes future judgment over post-death appearances.  In fact, if the letters and Gospels/Acts are second century, the development of crucifixion as theologically relevant to the Jesus story may have arisen in a crucifixion culture where the punishment blended with the Zeitgeist (e.g., “taking up the cross”; “crucifying the flesh”; etc).  Crossan supposes something similar where parables by Jesus evolved into stories about Jesus in Crossan’s “The Power of Parable.”  Scholars like John S. Kloppenborg (in The Formation of Q) argue Q does not narrate or presuppose Jesus’ crucifixion but uses the cross as a symbol of the hardships disciples must face, aligning with Q’s persecution theme (e.g., Q 6:22–23, 12:4–5).

For the resurrection accounts (e.g., Matthew 28, Luke 24, John 20–21), Crossan argues they function as parabolic stories rather than literal history. He points to their literary and theological nature.  The resurrection accounts differ significantly across the Gospels—e.g., who visits the tomb, what they see (angels, Jesus, or an empty tomb), and the sequence of events. Crossan sees these variations as evidence of creative storytelling, not eyewitness reporting. For instance, Luke’s Emmaus road story (Luke 24:13–33) has a parabolic feel, with its dramatic recognition of Jesus, akin to the surprise twists in Jesus’ own parables.  The resurrection stories emphasize Jesus’ triumph over death and his continued presence, aligning with the early Christian community’s need to affirm faith in a risen Christ. Crossan argues these accounts were crafted to inspire belief and convey meaning, much like Jesus’ parables provoked spiritual insight rather than described literal events.  Just as Jesus’ parables (e.g., the Prodigal Son or Good Samaritan) were not historical but carried profound truth, Crossan suggests the resurrection narratives are “true” in a theological sense—expressing the disciples’ experience of Jesus’ enduring impact—without requiring historical factuality.  Crossan doesn’t deny Jesus’ historical existence or the possibility of post-crucifixion experiences, but he questions the historicity of specific resurrection details, viewing them as symbolic megaparables. For example, the empty tomb or appearances (e.g., Jesus walking with disciples in Luke 24) might reflect the community’s conviction that Jesus’ mission continued, not necessarily physical events.

The Pharisees were a prominent Jewish sect during the Second Temple period (roughly 530 BCE–70 CE), and their beliefs about the resurrection of the dead were distinctive within the broader context of Jewish thought at the time. The Pharisees held a firm belief in a future resurrection of the dead at the end of time, where the righteous would be raised to eternal life. This is supported by sources like the New Testament (e.g., Acts 23:6–8, where Paul aligns with the Pharisees in affirming the resurrection) and Jewish historian Josephus, who notes in Antiquities of the Jews (18.1.3) that the Pharisees believed souls are immortal and that the righteous would be resurrected to a new life, while the wicked would face punishment.

The Pharisees’ belief in resurrection was tied to their eschatology, which included a messianic age and a final judgment. They saw the resurrection as a divine act where God would restore the righteous to life, often envisioned as a bodily resurrection, aligning with texts like Daniel 12:2 (“Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt”).

Unlike some Jewish groups, the Pharisees emphasized the immortality of the soul, which would be reunited with the body at the resurrection. Josephus describes their view that souls persist after death and are rewarded or punished in the afterlife before the final resurrection (Josephus, Jewish War 2.8.14).

Judaism in the Second Temple period was diverse, encompassing groups like the Sadducees, Essenes, and others, as well as earlier biblical traditions. The Sadducees, another major Jewish sect, rejected the resurrection entirely. According to Acts 23:8 and Josephus (Antiquities 18.1.4), the Sadducees denied the immortality of the soul, the resurrection, and an afterlife with rewards and punishments. They adhered strictly to the written Torah (the Pentateuch) and dismissed oral traditions or later prophetic texts like Daniel, which the Pharisees used to support their resurrection theology.

Earlier Hebrew Bible texts (e.g., much of the Torah and early prophetic writings) contain little explicit mention of a general resurrection or an afterlife. Traditional Jewish thought, as reflected in texts like Ecclesiastes 9:5–10 or Job 7:9, often emphasized Sheol as a shadowy, inactive state for the dead, with no clear expectation of resurrection. The concept of a general resurrection emerged more clearly in later texts like Daniel 12:2 and 2 Maccabees 7, which the Pharisees embraced but which were not universally accepted in earlier or more conservative Jewish circles.

The Pharisees’ belief in resurrection and the immortality of the soul may have been influenced by Hellenistic and Persian (Zoroastrian) ideas about the afterlife, which were circulating in the Near East during the Second Temple period. This marked a departure from older, more ambiguous Israelite views of death and Sheol, aligning the Pharisees with emerging apocalyptic traditions that emphasized cosmic renewal and judgment.

The Pharisees relied heavily on the Oral Torah (traditions later codified in the Mishnah and Talmud), which allowed them to develop doctrines like the resurrection that were less explicit in the written Torah. This contrasted with groups like the Sadducees, who rejected oral traditions and thus did not accept resurrection theology.  The Pharisees’ views were innovative, reflecting apocalyptic and possibly Hellenistic influences, setting them apart from more conservative or Torah-centric Jewish perspectives of their time.

Paul identifies strongly with this Pharisee resurrection concept and so self-identifies with the pharisees (Philippians 3:5; Acts 23:6).  The resurrected Jesus is thus understood by the apocalyptic Paul as the first fruits of the general resurrection harvest of souls at the end of days (1 Cor 15:20-25) which had begun.  The problem with the traditional interpretation here is 1 Corinthians is traditionally dated to the mid-50s, and so Paul is writing that the end times began 20 years ago with Christ’s resurrection but Christ still hasn’t returned to further the process.  A half a lifetime had passed, two thousand years ago life expectancy was significantly lower than it is today, with most people not living past their 30s or 40s due to factors like high infant mortality, disease, and lack of modern medicine.  It would have looked like another failed prophecy, like some scholars and critics argue that certain prophecies in Daniel, particularly those in chapters 11–12, appear to be inaccurate or unfulfilled, leading to the claim of “failed prophecy.”  Imagine Paul trying to convert pagans by telling them they should abandon their gods because some peasant they never heard of began the end times mass zombie process 20 years ago of which there is no current evidence!  Paul was not a general apocalypticist in the sense he was teaching the end was coming, but in fact taught that it was here.  He thought he would present his churches as chaste brides to Christ the bridegroom when Christ returns “I feel a divine jealousy for you, for I promised you in marriage to one husband, to present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. (2 Corinthians 11:2).”  In this way one of many iterations of Paul we have been discussing is thus an urgent apocalyptic caricature willing to present the most minimal faith requirements possible (Romans 10:9) in his gospel to be a sophist and all things to all people:

To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to gain Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though I myself am not under the law) so that I might gain those under the law. 21 To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (though I am not outside God’s law but am within Christ’s law) so that I might gain those outside the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, so that I might gain the weak. I have become all things to all people, that I might by all means save some. (1 Corinthians 9:20-21)

This is with ultimately the minimum requirements to be saved: “because if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. (Rom 10:9).” And, with the urgency of the End Times being underway.

The letters add incidental details to imagine Paul writing and acting in the time following Jesus’ death and so imagines his resurrection apocalyptically as the first fruits of the end time resurrection harvest of souls at the end of the age and in the same milieu as Jesus’ brother James, and Cephas.  If these are fictive letters, anchoring Paul with James and Cephas may just be historical fiction.  1 Thess 1 Paul says he was persecuted by the same Judeans who killed Christ

Matthew is a gospel of reader winking.  It is the most Jewish gospel, but blames the Jews for killing Jesus (like how the Jews were promised the land but wandered endlessly because of sin.).  Matthew is the most conspicuous of grounding Jesus’ biography in scriptural allusion, but is completely over the top like Jesus extensively recapitulating Moses; riding in on two animals, etc).  Matthew also lampoons the Pauline Pharisaic interpretation of Christ’s resurrection such as in 1 Corinthians with his mass rising zombie story when Christ dies (Matthew 27:51–53).

Conclusion

In Mark, Jesus repeatedly predicts his passion/resurrection and even conveys this idea in the last supper.  And yet, his disciples bafflingly don’t understand and so get violent and flee at the arrest as though they had no idea Jesus was going to get arrested.  Jesus in Mark was thereby figuratively talking to himself at the last supper, as he literally is in Paul’s account of the last supper with Jesus, alone, talking to future Christians in general through/as revelation.  Paul seems here to summarize Mark’s complex themes.  Interestingly, Paul does not say Jesus had disciples, only apostles. 

We see something similar with Peter denying Jesus three times even though Jesus warned Peter he would do this.  Mark seems to have crafted an odd account of abandonment and denial.  Does this abandonment and denial of Jesus fulfill Old Testament Scripture? 

In the Gospel of Mark, the theme of the disciples’ failure to understand Jesus’ predictions of his passion, death, and resurrection, despite his explicit teachings, is a recurring motif. This includes their confusion, fear, and actions such as fleeing at Jesus’ arrest (Mark 14:50) and Peter’s denial (Mark 14:66–72), even after Jesus forewarns them (Mark 14:27–31). The question of whether this abandonment and denial fulfill Old Testament Scripture requires examining Mark’s narrative in light of its scriptural allusions and theological purpose. 

Mark explicitly connects the disciples’ abandonment to an Old Testament prophecy in Mark 14:27, where Jesus says, “You will all fall away, for it is written, ‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered.’” This quotes Zechariah 13:7, which in its original context refers to God striking a shepherd, leading to the scattering of the people (sheep) as a form of judgment and purification. In Mark, Jesus applies this to himself as the shepherd and the disciples as the sheep who will scatter upon his arrest and crucifixion. This fulfillment of Zechariah’s prophecy frames the disciples’ abandonment as part of God’s divine plan, aligning Jesus’ passion with Old Testament expectations of a suffering yet redemptive figure.  Not to mention they failed Jesus’ message as a teacher by getting violent at the arrest. 

Regarding Peter’s denial, Jesus predicts it in Mark 14:30, saying, “Truly I tell you, this day, this very night, before the rooster crows twice, you will deny me three times.” While this prediction is not explicitly tied to a single Old Testament passage in Mark’s text, it resonates with broader scriptural themes of human failure and divine foreknowledge. For example, Psalm 41:9, which speaks of betrayal by a close companion (“Even my close friend in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, has lifted his heel against me”), could be seen as a thematic parallel, especially since the Last Supper context in Mark 14 involves shared bread and betrayal (Judas’ betrayal is predicted alongside Peter’s denial). Additionally, the motif of denial and scattering aligns with the suffering servant in Isaiah 53, who is despised and rejected (Isaiah 53:3), though Mark does not directly quote this passage here. 

Mark’s portrayal of the disciples’ failures serves a theological purpose: it underscores the human inability to fully grasp or remain faithful to God’s plan without divine intervention. The disciples’ misunderstanding and abandonment highlight Jesus’ isolation as he fulfills his role as the suffering Messiah. Jesus was sent into a world where the good were simpletons (e.g., disciples’ failure to understand “yeast of the Pharisees, Mark 8:14-21” ; predictions of his death and resurrection, Mark 9:32; etc.) and the intelligent were corrupt (e.g., the corrupt trial by the Jewish Elite). 

Is it more likely Jesus had disciples that were fisherman, or is this just a literary element to pair with “I will make you fishers of men”?  This also sets up the post-resurrection restoration (Mark 16:7, where the angel instructs the women to tell the disciples and Peter that Jesus is going ahead to Galilee), emphasizing God’s grace despite human weakness.  While Zechariah 13:7 is the clearest Old Testament fulfillment for the disciples’ scattering, Peter’s denial and the broader abandonment resonate with patterns of human failure and divine faithfulness found in texts like Psalm 41 and Isaiah 53. Mark’s narrative suggests these events are not random but part of a divinely orchestrated plan, fulfilling Scripture and revealing Jesus’ identity as the Messiah who suffers alone yet triumphs through resurrection.

Paul seems to reflect on Mark and often connects Jesus’ suffering to Old Testament prophecies, which can indirectly relate to abandonment. For example, in Romans 15:3, Paul quotes Psalm 69:9, saying, “For Christ did not please himself, but as it is written, ‘The reproaches of those who reproached you fell on me.’” Psalm 69 is a lament of a righteous sufferer who is abandoned and mocked, and Paul applies it to Jesus. This resonates with the idea of Jesus being forsaken in Mark, potentially encompassing the disciples’ abandonment and Peter’s denial as part of the broader rejection foretold in Scripture.  Like with the haggadic midrash scriptural death and corrupt trial, Paul might be summarizing Mark here if the letters indeed postdate Acts and the Gospels.  Peter’s eyes are opened to his sinful inner nature when he realizes he betrayed Jesus, like Adam’s eyes being opened to his nakedness when he broke God’s law.  The abandonment and betrayal by the disciples are all part of the dystopian vision of what the world would have done if God beloved (agapetos) messenger (angelos)/messiah had indeed appeared in the early first century as, according to some, predicted in Daniel. 

In making conspicuous the world turning on Jesus it grieves us to see ourselves in those people, knowing we probably would have done the same.  Our eyes being opened to our flaws prompts repentance.  Paul says regarding highlighting faults “For although I grieved you with my letter, I do not regret it. Although I did regret it (for I see that that letter caused you grief, though only briefly), 9 now I rejoice, not because you were grieved but because your grief led to repentance, for you felt a godly grief … (2 Corinthians 7:8-9).”

This certainly would have made sense thinking back into the early1st century from the perspective of the destruction of the temple in 70 CE or later Bar Kokhba because there were many messianic claimants (and indeed there was even a major failed one during Bar Kokhba) who failed.  Judas the Galilean (circa 6 CE) had the Romans crush his revolt, and Judas was likely killed.  Theudas (circa 44–46 CE): Roman authorities executed Theudas, and his followers were dispersed.  John the Baptist (circa 20s–30s CE):  Herod Antipas executed John, likely due (according to Josephus vs the account in Mark) to his growing influence and perceived threat to political stability.  The Samaritan Prophet (circa 36 CE): Roman governor Pontius Pilate suppressed the movement, killing the prophet and many followers.  Athronges (circa 4–2 BCE): The Romans quelled the rebellion, and Athronges’ fate is unclear. Simon of Perea (circa 4 BCE):  Roman forces killed Simon, and his rebellion was suppressed. 

Jewish messianic hopes in this period were diverse, drawing from biblical prophecies (e.g., Isaiah 11, Daniel 7). Some expected a Davidic king, others a prophetic figure like Moses or Elijah, and some a priestly or eschatological leader. The Roman occupation and Herodian rule intensified these expectations, leading to various movements.  Many unnamed or lesser-documented “prophets” and “bandits” (as labeled by Josephus) likely emerged, promising divine deliverance. These figures often attracted followers but were suppressed by Roman authorities.  It makes a great deal of sense, then, that later post 70/130s writers would invent a crucified Jesus messiah in the early 1st century who nonetheless was not stopped by the Roman crucifixion because that would really capture the imagination and zeitgeist of the era.  A post 130s writer would have said yes, Jesus as a messianic claimant would have been killed, but he would have overcome the corrupt Jewish Elites and Rome converting the soldier at the cross, having a quick death instead of a prolonged crucifixion, and being vindicated in God’s eyes via resurrection.

Next Time:

THE QUEST FOR THE HISTORICAL PAUL (Part 7/8: Paul and Salvation by Any Means Necessary)