Mark Goodacre on Crucifixion and Passion Narratives

My friend Mark Goodacre of Duke has two very fine podcasts, one on crucifixion itself and one on the nature of the passion narratives; highly recommended.

3 Responses to “Mark Goodacre on Crucifixion and Passion Narratives”

  1. Many thanks, Mike.

  2. Peter Murphy says:

    Thank you for your work. I’ve learned a lot from reading your books. I have no theological training – I just read what I can. I just listened to the two podcasts by Mark Goodacre; really enjoyed the one on the crucifixion, somewhat puzzled by the one on the passion narratives. I understand that the response given was one that J.D.Crossan could receive (using his terminology and some of his assumptions), but I had been under the impression that there was some consensus now that the gospels were first generation (read: “eye-witness”) accounts. Is there no reason to consider this explanation for the passion accounts? Thanks.

  3. MJG says:

    Dear Peter,

    Good to hear from you and glad you benefit from my work.

    “Consensus” regarding the gospels as eye-witness accounts is far too strong a term. That they are such is a thesis, and probably in fact more of a minority opinion. Mark Goodacre’s argument does not confirm or deny that thesis; he merely argues that what we have in the passion narratives is NOT history made up to conform to and confirm texts deemed prophetic, but rather “traditions” (which could include traditions stemming from eyewitnesses) told in scriptural (i.e. OT) language. I agree wholeheartedly with this perspective, which allows for the use and retelling of various kinds of traditions without needing the thesis of Crossan and others that such traditions are invented.

    Thanks again, and all the best.

Leave a Reply


google