Jesus' resurrection is obviously a very important story, but if we look at Mark, the first gospel written, one would never know it. In the oldest copy we have of Mark, the last chapter ends with verse 18. Let's look at that first.
After Jesus' death, Joseph of Arimathea asks Pilate for his body. Pilate grants it to him. He takes Jesus' body down, and wraps it in a linen shroud, and lays it in a tomb which had been hewn from rock, and rolls a large stone against its entrance. Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses see where Jesus is laid.
After the Sabbath, Mary Magdalene, Mary (the mother of James) and Salome buy spices, and go to the tomb very early on the first day of the week to anoint Jesus' body. On the way they wonder who will roll away the stone from the entrance of the tomb. When they get there they find the stone already rolled away. They enter the tomb, and see a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe, and they are amazed. The man says to them, "Do not be amazed; you seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen, he is not here; see the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee; there you shall see him, as he told you." The women flee from the tomb, trembling and astonished, and they say nothing to anyone for they are afraid. THE END. Jesus never sees his disciples and no one sees the risen Jesus. We have only the attendant's word that Jesus is risen and not just removed from the tomb and we don't even know who or what he was.
Perhaps, in the second or third century CE, a copyist, a translator, or an otherwise interested party didn't think the original ending made much sense, so he or she created another 12 verses and tacked them onto Mark's last chapter. In the extra verses their author tidies up the loose ends. When Jesus rises he appears first to Mary Magdalene, then unto two of them and finally to the eleven. He tells them to go and preach the gospel to the world. He also tells them that those who believe and are baptized will be saved. However, those who don't believe will be damned. Also believers will be able to drive out demons, handle serpents and drink deadly things and not be hurt (ask Jamie Coutts if this is true, oh, wait, he died of a poisonous snake bite he received during one of his church services) and heal the sick. Then Jesus is received up into heaven, where he sits on the right hand of God.
Matthew borrows the Joseph Arimathea story from Mark, except he identifies the tomb as Joseph's and he himself rolls the stone up to the door. The observers are Mary Magdalene and the other Mary. Matthew adds an interesting sub-plot to the story by having the chief priests and Pharisees go to Pilate and ask him to set a guard at Jesus' tomb so his disciples can't spirit away his body during the night and then claim that he rose from the dead. Pilate agrees to do so and the tomb is sealed and a guard is set. In Matthew's version Salome doesn't go to the tomb, only Mary Magdalene and the other Mary do so. When they arrive an earthquake occurs (Matthew is big on earthquakes, according to him one also occurred at the time of Jesus death. No other gospel writer mentions either of these events.) and an angel of the Lord descends from heaven and rolls the stone away and sits on it. His appearance is like lightning and his raiment is like snow. The guards fear him and tremble and are like dead men. He tells the women not to be afraid, Jesus is risen and he instructs them to go quickly and tell his disciples that he has risen and will meet them in Galilee. On their way they meet Jesus. They take hold of his feet and worship him. He tells them to go tell his brethren to go to Galilee and they will see him there.
This is where Matthew's sub-plot takes a bizarre turn. The soldiers who were guarding the tomb go to the chief priests and the elders, and tell them all that they've seen. The chief priests and elders concoct a story for the guards to tell everyone. They say, "Tell people, 'His disciples came by night and stole him away while we were asleep.' " They give the guards some money and say they'll cover for them if Pilate asks any questions. What kind of cock-a-mammy story is this? They were sound asleep and that's how his disciples were able to abscond with Jesus' body and they knew it was his disciples because they saw them removing his body while they were sound asleep. Really? If they told anyone this story they would have made a laughing stock of themselves. And let's not forget these guards saw something the average Christian will never see their life time - an angel descending from heaven rolling a huge rock away and sitting on it who then starts speaking the language the women spoke. Surely this would have made them instant followers of Jesus and maybe the chief priests and elders as well when they heard the story, albeit, second hand. Matthew goes on to say this story has been spread among the Jews to this day. Yeah, if they want to make fools of themselves.
The eleven disciples go to Galilee and meet and worship Jesus, but some doubted. Why would they doubt their own eyes? Jesus tells them to go forth and make disciples of all nations baptizing in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.
Luke also includes the Joseph of Arimathea story. This time it's the women who came with Jesus from Galilee who saw where he is laid. The women prepare spices and ointments with which to anoint Jesus' body. On the first day of the week Mary Magdalene, Joanna and Mary the mother of James go to the tomb, and find the stone rolled away from the tomb and Jesus' body gone. Suddenly, two men in dazzling apparel are standing by them. The women are frightened, but the men tell them that Jesus has risen as he said he would. Returning from the tomb they tell the eleven and the rest, but the apostles don't believe them. They think it's an idle tale.
Luke adds a lot to the story at this point. Two unidentified men are walking to Emmaus when Jesus joins them, but their eyes are kept from recognizing him. They tell him the story of Jesus and how his tomb was found empty. They share a meal with him and their eyes are opened and they recognize him. They return to Jerusalem and find the eleven and tell them they saw Jesus. Jesus joins them. At first they think he is an apparition, but he invites them to 'handle' him and to look at his hands and feet. He tells them that the repentance and forgiveness of sins should be preached in his name to all nations. He leads them to Bethany, blesses them and parts from them.
John's author also contains the Joseph of Arimathea story, but this time Nicodemus helps Joseph wrap Jesus' body, and they place him in the tomb. The first to go to the tomb in John's version is Mary Magdalene, by herself. She runs and tells Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, that the stone has been rolled away and that the tomb is empty. Simon Peter and the other disciple race to the tomb. The other disciple gets there first, but doesn't go in until Simon Peter gets there. Jesus' body is gone. Only the linen cloths remain. The two disciples go back to their homes.
Mary stands weeping outside the tomb and she sees two angels inside. They ask her why she is weeping, and she replies it is because they have taken her Lord away, but she doesn't know where they have taken him. She turns and sees Jesus, but doesn't recognize him. She believes he is the gardener. He calls her name and then she knows who he is. He tells her not to hold him as he has not ascended to the Father and asks her to tell his disciples that he is ascending to Him. During the evening Jesus comes and stands among the disciples. He shows them his hands and his side. He breathes on them and tells them to receive the Holy Spirit. He also tells them they have the power to forgive sins. Thomas, one of the disciples arrives after Jesus has left. They tell him about Jesus' visit. He tells them he won't believe unless he can see and put his fingers into the nail prints in Jesus' hands and his hand into Jesus' side.
Eight days later the disciples, including Thomas are together when Jesus enters the room without apparently opening the door. He shows Thomas his wounds and invites him to put his finger in his hand wounds and his hand into his side. Thomas believes. John's author tells us that Jesus did many other signs before his disciples which he didn't write in his book.
Some of the disciples go fishing on the sea of Tiberias, but they catch nothing. At daybreak, they see Jesus on the beach, but they don't recognize him. They tell him they've caught no fish. Jesus tells them to cast their net on the right side of the boat where they will find some. They do so and catch so many fish they can't haul in the net. Jesus and his disciples have bread and grilled fish for breakfast.
Interesting Notes:
1. The King James version of the bible contain the extra 12 verses as part of the text proper. Newer versions have removed these verses from the text proper and relegated them to a footnote.
2. In Matthew's version of the story, the Roman guards and the women who have come to the tomb witness an angel descend from heaven and roll away the stone. Jesus is not seen exiting the tomb. It's already empty, so he either walked right through the stone, or rolled it away himself. If he did the latter, why would he roll it back into place? He certainly didn't roll it back in the other three gospels. If he did the former, why was the stone rolled away in the other three gospels?
3. None of the four gospels agree on who goes to the tomb on the first day of the week after the crucifixion.
4. There is no mention of Jesus ascending to heaven in Matthew, John or in Mark with the original ending. In the extra verses that were added to Mark, Jesus "was taken up into heaven....". It isn't clear whether the disciples witnessed this or not. In Luke, we find "While he blessed them, he parted from them." Not a clear ascension. However, in the King James version of the bible we find in Luke "While he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven." A clear ascension which the disciples most likely saw. This is obviously not a translation problem. It would appear to be an interpolation problem. The oldest copy of Luke doesn't have this addition. It gets added later and stayed with us through to the KJV. Now it has been pulled from the text proper in most of the later versions and is just a footnote. More interesting still, it is generally accepted that the author of Luke was also the author of the book The Acts of the Apostles in which there is a description of Jesus' ascension (Acts 1:9). "And when he had said this, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight." A clear ascension. There is no clear ascension in the oldest copy of Luke that we have, but there is in Acts. Same author. These two works should be in sync, but they're not. One would think that when he wrote his second work he would have remembered what he had written in his first.
5. In Luke, resurrected Jesus invites his disciples to 'handle' him, to check his wounds. In Matthew the women who first see the resurrected Jesus hold his feet. In John, Jesus tells Thomas to put his finger in his hand wounds and to put his hand in the wound in his side, but he won't let Mary Magdalene 'hold' him when she see him after his resurrection. Why not? He let others touch him?
6. Only Matthew's version has an angel descending from heaven, rolling away the stone and sitting upon it. None of the other gospels contain anything like that. Matthew's author seems to have a very vivid imagination or a source of information to which the other gospel writers didn't seem to have access.
Wednesday 24 December 2014
Friday 4 April 2014
The Gospels - A Comparative Reading - Part 8 The Temptation of Jesus
This story appears only in the synoptic gospels, that is, Mark, Matthew and Luke. However, this story is different from the ones we've looked at so far. Mark, the earliest written, has only a bare bones version. It is presented in only two verses, short ones at that, only 33 words in total. Mark provides no details of the temptations that are presented to Jesus. The spirit drives Jesus into the wilderness. He is there for 40 days. Satan tempts him. He is with wild beasts. And the angels minister to him. That's it.
Matthew and Luke both provide additional details to this story, including the three temptations that Satan presents to Jesus. They do however, disagree on the order in which they are presented to him. The details are very similar in both these gospels, yet they did not come from Mark, since they don't appear there. Where did Matthew and Luke get them then? Christian scholars have postulated that both Matthew and Luke had another source, besides Mark, that was lost long ago. Scholars refer to it as the Q gospel, so named for the German word for source, quelle. It is thought to have been a collection of sayings of Jesus. This seems to make sense in this case since Jesus' replies to the three temptations are very well known; e.g. "Man shall not live by bread alone.....".
Mark identifies Jesus' tempter as Satan. In Matthew and Luke, it's the devil. The being that causes Jesus to be in the wilderness, is identified as the Spirit in all three gospels, not the Holy Spirit, but I expect that is who they mean. It is interesting that in Mark, the Spirit drives him into the wilderness, while in Matthew and Luke the Spirit leads him there, a much gentler approach. It's hard to imagine one third of the Holy Trinity driving another third anywhere. I expect Jesus would have responded positively to a gentle suggestion.
The temptations themselves don't make a lot of sense. What is the point of having Jesus tempted by the devil? The devil has no currency that interests Jesus. The devil seems to have knowledge of Jesus' divinity or at least that he has supporters in high places. Even the devil must know how this will end. He has nothing to offer that would be remotely of interest to Jesus. Jesus can turn rocks into bread if he wants to. He can throw himself off the pinnacle of the temple without injury and the kingdoms the devil offers him would be of no use to him; and how are they the devil's to give anyway? In Luke, the devil tells Jesus that all the kingdoms that he sees from atop a mountain that "has been delivered to me" could be his if he agrees to worship him. It sounds like the devil thinks God turned those kingdoms over to him. I can't find anywhere in Luke where the author says this. Where could Luke have obtained this information? If it had happened, it would have been a private deal between God and the devil.
It's hard to see what the point of this story is. Why does the Spirit deliver Jesus to the devil to be tempted in the first place? The Spirit isn't the devil's lackey. Is it at God's behest or the devil's? There is no chance Jesus could fail; he is God incarnate. What truck would he have with the devil, so what's the point? And by the way, who witnessed these events that would then be in a position to pass this information on to posterity? No wonder the author of John's gospel took a pass on it, if indeed he had ever heard of it.
Matthew and Luke both provide additional details to this story, including the three temptations that Satan presents to Jesus. They do however, disagree on the order in which they are presented to him. The details are very similar in both these gospels, yet they did not come from Mark, since they don't appear there. Where did Matthew and Luke get them then? Christian scholars have postulated that both Matthew and Luke had another source, besides Mark, that was lost long ago. Scholars refer to it as the Q gospel, so named for the German word for source, quelle. It is thought to have been a collection of sayings of Jesus. This seems to make sense in this case since Jesus' replies to the three temptations are very well known; e.g. "Man shall not live by bread alone.....".
Mark identifies Jesus' tempter as Satan. In Matthew and Luke, it's the devil. The being that causes Jesus to be in the wilderness, is identified as the Spirit in all three gospels, not the Holy Spirit, but I expect that is who they mean. It is interesting that in Mark, the Spirit drives him into the wilderness, while in Matthew and Luke the Spirit leads him there, a much gentler approach. It's hard to imagine one third of the Holy Trinity driving another third anywhere. I expect Jesus would have responded positively to a gentle suggestion.
The temptations themselves don't make a lot of sense. What is the point of having Jesus tempted by the devil? The devil has no currency that interests Jesus. The devil seems to have knowledge of Jesus' divinity or at least that he has supporters in high places. Even the devil must know how this will end. He has nothing to offer that would be remotely of interest to Jesus. Jesus can turn rocks into bread if he wants to. He can throw himself off the pinnacle of the temple without injury and the kingdoms the devil offers him would be of no use to him; and how are they the devil's to give anyway? In Luke, the devil tells Jesus that all the kingdoms that he sees from atop a mountain that "has been delivered to me" could be his if he agrees to worship him. It sounds like the devil thinks God turned those kingdoms over to him. I can't find anywhere in Luke where the author says this. Where could Luke have obtained this information? If it had happened, it would have been a private deal between God and the devil.
It's hard to see what the point of this story is. Why does the Spirit deliver Jesus to the devil to be tempted in the first place? The Spirit isn't the devil's lackey. Is it at God's behest or the devil's? There is no chance Jesus could fail; he is God incarnate. What truck would he have with the devil, so what's the point? And by the way, who witnessed these events that would then be in a position to pass this information on to posterity? No wonder the author of John's gospel took a pass on it, if indeed he had ever heard of it.
Tuesday 4 March 2014
The Gospels - A Comparative Reading - Part 7 Pontius Pilate and the Trial
In 63 BCE the Roman general Pompey entered Jerusalem making Judea part of the Roman Empire. The Romans allowed the high priest to remain in office, using him as an administrative liaison with the local Jewish leadership, but there was no doubt who controlled the land. They appointed Herod the Great king in 40 BCE to rule the Jews of Palestine. He ruled from then until his death in 4 BCE. Upon his death, his kingdom was split up among his sons, but Judea was eventually placed under direct Roman rule under procurators (governors) who were appointed by the Roman senate or the emperor himself. Pontius Pilate was one such procurator. During Pilate's time as Procurator, a son of Herod the Great, Herod Antipas ruled Galilee. The Romans were in charge of Judea and the procurators were the rulers. When Pilate was procurator he was the most powerful man in Judea.
After Jesus' arrest, all the synoptic gospels tell a very similar story to begin with. Jesus is taken to Caiaphas the high priest. Some of the chief priests, scribes and elders are there. In Mark and Matthew some unidentified people testify against Jesus and then Caiaphas questions him. They accuse him of blasphemy and find him deserving of death. In Luke, no one testifies against him and Caiaphas doesn't question him directly. He, along with the chief priests, scribes and elders question Jesus. The questioners aren't identified as individuals only as "they". No accusation of blasphemy is made, nor is Jesus said to be deserving of death. In Luke this questioning takes place the same day that Jesus is taken before Pilate. In Mark and Matthew it takes place the day before Jesus is taken before Pilate. In his replies to the questioning, Jesus speaks 24 words in Mark, 30 words in Matthew and 42 words in Luke.
The next day (same day in Luke) Jesus is taken before Pilate, the procurator of Judea, to be tried. In Mark, Pilate is immediately suspicious of the accusations that are being brought against Jesus. When Jesus makes no reply to the accusations Pilate "wondered". Also, "He perceived that it was out of envy that the chief priests had delivered him up." And he asks them, "What evil has he done?" In Matthew, Pilate "wondered greatly" at Jesus' silence in response to the accusations. Also, "For he knew that it was out of envy that they had delivered him up." And he asks, "Why, what evil has he done?" Mark and Matthew are very similar up to this point. The similarity continues as they both have Pilate relenting and delivering Jesus up to be crucified However, Luke is quite different. Pilate's initial response to Jesus is, "I find no crime in this man." When he learns that Jesus is from Galilee he sends him to see Herod Antipas, who is then in Jerusalem. Galilee is his jurisdiction. At first, Herod is pleased to see Jesus, as he has heard about him, and is hoping to see some sign done by him. Jesus refuses to answer any of his questions and Herod becomes frustrated with Jesus and he and his soldiers treat him with contempt and mock him. Herod sends him back to Pilate. This scene with Herod is unique to Luke. It doesn't appear in any of the other gospels.
Pilate again states his position on Jesus. "You brought me this man as one who was perverting the people; and after examining him before you, behold, I did not find this man guilty of any of your charges against him; neither did Herod, for he sent him back to us. Behold nothing deserving death has been done by him; I will therefore chastise him and release him." The crowd voices their disapproval and Pilate again states his position, but they don't listen to him so he addresses them a third time, "Why, what evil has he done? I have found in him no crime deserving death; I will therefore chastise him and release him." The crowd continues to shout for Jesus' crucifixion and Pilate relents and delivers Jesus up to their will.
The author of the gospel of John adds a little twist to his version of this story and gets himself into a bit of trouble for doing so. The arresting party takes Jesus not to Caiaphas the high priest, but to his father-in-law Annas. This doesn't make much sense. Annas was a former high priest, but he isn't now. His son-in-law occupies that position. Annas has no authority now. The high priest, Caiaphas (not Annas), questions Jesus, who is anything but silent in this gospel. He speaks eloquently to Caiaphas speaking 69 words in doing so. Then Annas sends Jesus to the high priest. WHO JUST FINISHED QUESTIONING HIM! This is a glaring chronological error. The conversation between Jesus and Caiaphas takes place before Annas sends Jesus to see him.
Jesus is brought before Pilate, who suggests to them that they take him and judge him by their own law. They tell him it is unlawful for them to carry out a death sentence. Pilate has a private conversation with Jesus in the praetorium, the procurator's residence. The others have stayed outside as they don't wish to be defiled, otherwise they won't be able to eat the passover meal. Again, Jesus waxes eloquent with Pilate, after which Pilate goes outside to address the crowd. He tells them, "I find no crime in him...." The crowd isn't satisfied so Pilate brings out Jesus and says, "Behold, I am bringing him out to you, that you may know that I find no crime in him." The crowd shouts that they want Jesus crucified so Pilate tells them, "Take him yourselves and crucify him, for I find no crime in him." They tell Pilate that Jesus ought to die for he has made himself the Son of God. Pilate speaks to Jesus; Jesus doesn't answer. Pilate says to him, "Will you not speak to me? Do you know that I have power to release you, and power to crucify you?" Jesus finds his tongue again and answers him. Pilate seeks to release Jesus, but the Jews object and say things that make Jesus appear to be against Caesar. Pilate relents and turns him over the be crucified.
All four gospels make it abundantly clear that Pilate's verdict was NOT GUILTY. Where did this trial take place? JUDEA. Who was in charge there? THE ROMANS. Judea was part of their empire. Who was the Roman's most powerful man there at this time? Pontius Pilate, the procurator, the governor. He was in charge. How do the gospels explain Pilate's supposed lack of power? According to Mark, Pilate wished to satisfy the crowd. According to Matthew, Pilate saw that he was gaining nothing , but rather that a riot was beginning. According to Luke, the voices of the chief priests etc. prevailed. According to John, Pilate becomes more afraid when he hears,"We have a law, and by that law he ought to die, because he has made himself the Son of God." But in the end, he just hands Jesus over to be crucified, no reason given.
This is hard to comprehend. Why do the Jewish subjects in the Roman Empire appear to be running the show. The Romans are in charge here. What Pilate says, goes. He found Jesus innocent and intends to release him. That should be the end of it. Pilate said himself he had power to release him and power to crucify him. There were surely guards and soldiers in and around the praetorium and both Mark and Matthew say that the soldiers called for the whole battalion when the verdict to crucify Jesus came down. Why didn't Pilate call for them when his verdict was being resisted? If he could do it later, he could have done it then. I'm sure the chief priests, scribes and elders would have been no match for a battalion of trained and armed soldiers reinforced with the soldiers and guards of the court. I doubt the modus operandi of the Roman forces was to back down whenever anyone put up a bit of resistance to their ambitions. They would never have created one of the great empires of all time if they had.
But Pilate had another option. He could simply have waited them out. He could have just kept talking and refusing to change his verdict. The Jews had already told Pilate that it was unlawful for them to carry out an execution, and Pilate had told them in John, to go ahead and crucify him themselves. They declined his offer. Apparently, they weren't up to doing their own dirty work. They wanted the Romans to do it for them. This would give Pilate the upper hand. They're not up for killing Jesus themselves, and Pilate doesn't want to, since he considers Jesus to be innocent. Looks like a stand off. So, just wait them out and eventually they'd get tired and/or hungry and go home. Pilate would have been home free and so would Jesus.
Interesting notes:
1. In Matthew as the Jews are crying out for Jesus to be crucified they call out, "His blood be upon us and on our children." Have so few words ever caused so much persecution and grief as these nine have? It's hard to believe anyone would say something like this. I suppose it could be argued that they were trying to make it easier for Pilate to condemn Jesus, as his blood would be on their hands, not Pilate's, but that's not how it works. Just saying someone's blood is on your hands doesn't make it so. And even if it did, putting it on your children as well? Who would do such a thing if they did think it worked that way?
2. According to Mark, Matthew and Luke Jesus says exactly 4 words to Pilate; that being, "You have said so." According to John, Jesus says a whopping 116 words to Pilate.
3. The man that Pilate releases from prison for the Jews (a passover feast tradition apparently) is named Barabbas, who is a rebel who committed murder during an insurrection according to Mark; a notorious prisoner according to Matthew; a man imprisoned for murder and for participating in an insurrection in Jerusalem according to Luke and a robber according to John. The Romans took insurrection seriously. It doesn't seem likely that this murderer and rebel would be the kind of prisoner that they would release. They usually crucified those found guilty of insurrection. One of the robbers that was crucified with Jesus would have made a more likely candidate for release. The chief priests etc. didn't care who was released as long as it wasn't Jesus.
4. In Mark, the high Priest, Caiaphas, asks Jesus if he is the Christ, the son of the blessed. Jesus replies, "I am; and you will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming with the clouds of heaven." In Matthew, the high priest asks Jesus if he is the Christ, the Son of God; to which he replies, "You have said so. But I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of power and coming on the clouds of heaven." In Luke, in response to "If you are the Christ, tell us." Jesus replies,"If I tell you, you will not believe; and if I ask you, you will not answer. But from now on the Son of man shall be seated at the right hand of the power of God." In John, Jesus says nothing remotely like this. Notice that in Luke, Jesus' reply no longer contains the words, "...you will see..." Most christian scholars believe that Luke was the third gospel written (approximately 80-85 CE), so a considerable amount of time had past since Jesus's death, making it likely that Caiaphas had already died when Luke's gospel was penned. This would make Jesus' prediction that Caiaphas would see Jesus return on the clouds of heaven rather unlikely. And when John's author penned his gospel a decade or two later still, the clock had certainly run out on Jesus' prediction, hence no similar quote in John. The author would have looked foolish if he had included a prediction from Jesus that all his readers would have known hadn't come true. It still hasn't, some two thousand years later.
5. Matthew 26:59-61, "Now the chief priests and the whole council sought false testimony against Jesus that they might put him to death, they found none, though many false witnesses came forward." False witnesses provide false testimony, right? So, many false witnesses came forward with their false testimony, but they couldn't find any. Does this make any sense?
After Jesus' arrest, all the synoptic gospels tell a very similar story to begin with. Jesus is taken to Caiaphas the high priest. Some of the chief priests, scribes and elders are there. In Mark and Matthew some unidentified people testify against Jesus and then Caiaphas questions him. They accuse him of blasphemy and find him deserving of death. In Luke, no one testifies against him and Caiaphas doesn't question him directly. He, along with the chief priests, scribes and elders question Jesus. The questioners aren't identified as individuals only as "they". No accusation of blasphemy is made, nor is Jesus said to be deserving of death. In Luke this questioning takes place the same day that Jesus is taken before Pilate. In Mark and Matthew it takes place the day before Jesus is taken before Pilate. In his replies to the questioning, Jesus speaks 24 words in Mark, 30 words in Matthew and 42 words in Luke.
The next day (same day in Luke) Jesus is taken before Pilate, the procurator of Judea, to be tried. In Mark, Pilate is immediately suspicious of the accusations that are being brought against Jesus. When Jesus makes no reply to the accusations Pilate "wondered". Also, "He perceived that it was out of envy that the chief priests had delivered him up." And he asks them, "What evil has he done?" In Matthew, Pilate "wondered greatly" at Jesus' silence in response to the accusations. Also, "For he knew that it was out of envy that they had delivered him up." And he asks, "Why, what evil has he done?" Mark and Matthew are very similar up to this point. The similarity continues as they both have Pilate relenting and delivering Jesus up to be crucified However, Luke is quite different. Pilate's initial response to Jesus is, "I find no crime in this man." When he learns that Jesus is from Galilee he sends him to see Herod Antipas, who is then in Jerusalem. Galilee is his jurisdiction. At first, Herod is pleased to see Jesus, as he has heard about him, and is hoping to see some sign done by him. Jesus refuses to answer any of his questions and Herod becomes frustrated with Jesus and he and his soldiers treat him with contempt and mock him. Herod sends him back to Pilate. This scene with Herod is unique to Luke. It doesn't appear in any of the other gospels.
Pilate again states his position on Jesus. "You brought me this man as one who was perverting the people; and after examining him before you, behold, I did not find this man guilty of any of your charges against him; neither did Herod, for he sent him back to us. Behold nothing deserving death has been done by him; I will therefore chastise him and release him." The crowd voices their disapproval and Pilate again states his position, but they don't listen to him so he addresses them a third time, "Why, what evil has he done? I have found in him no crime deserving death; I will therefore chastise him and release him." The crowd continues to shout for Jesus' crucifixion and Pilate relents and delivers Jesus up to their will.
The author of the gospel of John adds a little twist to his version of this story and gets himself into a bit of trouble for doing so. The arresting party takes Jesus not to Caiaphas the high priest, but to his father-in-law Annas. This doesn't make much sense. Annas was a former high priest, but he isn't now. His son-in-law occupies that position. Annas has no authority now. The high priest, Caiaphas (not Annas), questions Jesus, who is anything but silent in this gospel. He speaks eloquently to Caiaphas speaking 69 words in doing so. Then Annas sends Jesus to the high priest. WHO JUST FINISHED QUESTIONING HIM! This is a glaring chronological error. The conversation between Jesus and Caiaphas takes place before Annas sends Jesus to see him.
Jesus is brought before Pilate, who suggests to them that they take him and judge him by their own law. They tell him it is unlawful for them to carry out a death sentence. Pilate has a private conversation with Jesus in the praetorium, the procurator's residence. The others have stayed outside as they don't wish to be defiled, otherwise they won't be able to eat the passover meal. Again, Jesus waxes eloquent with Pilate, after which Pilate goes outside to address the crowd. He tells them, "I find no crime in him...." The crowd isn't satisfied so Pilate brings out Jesus and says, "Behold, I am bringing him out to you, that you may know that I find no crime in him." The crowd shouts that they want Jesus crucified so Pilate tells them, "Take him yourselves and crucify him, for I find no crime in him." They tell Pilate that Jesus ought to die for he has made himself the Son of God. Pilate speaks to Jesus; Jesus doesn't answer. Pilate says to him, "Will you not speak to me? Do you know that I have power to release you, and power to crucify you?" Jesus finds his tongue again and answers him. Pilate seeks to release Jesus, but the Jews object and say things that make Jesus appear to be against Caesar. Pilate relents and turns him over the be crucified.
All four gospels make it abundantly clear that Pilate's verdict was NOT GUILTY. Where did this trial take place? JUDEA. Who was in charge there? THE ROMANS. Judea was part of their empire. Who was the Roman's most powerful man there at this time? Pontius Pilate, the procurator, the governor. He was in charge. How do the gospels explain Pilate's supposed lack of power? According to Mark, Pilate wished to satisfy the crowd. According to Matthew, Pilate saw that he was gaining nothing , but rather that a riot was beginning. According to Luke, the voices of the chief priests etc. prevailed. According to John, Pilate becomes more afraid when he hears,"We have a law, and by that law he ought to die, because he has made himself the Son of God." But in the end, he just hands Jesus over to be crucified, no reason given.
This is hard to comprehend. Why do the Jewish subjects in the Roman Empire appear to be running the show. The Romans are in charge here. What Pilate says, goes. He found Jesus innocent and intends to release him. That should be the end of it. Pilate said himself he had power to release him and power to crucify him. There were surely guards and soldiers in and around the praetorium and both Mark and Matthew say that the soldiers called for the whole battalion when the verdict to crucify Jesus came down. Why didn't Pilate call for them when his verdict was being resisted? If he could do it later, he could have done it then. I'm sure the chief priests, scribes and elders would have been no match for a battalion of trained and armed soldiers reinforced with the soldiers and guards of the court. I doubt the modus operandi of the Roman forces was to back down whenever anyone put up a bit of resistance to their ambitions. They would never have created one of the great empires of all time if they had.
But Pilate had another option. He could simply have waited them out. He could have just kept talking and refusing to change his verdict. The Jews had already told Pilate that it was unlawful for them to carry out an execution, and Pilate had told them in John, to go ahead and crucify him themselves. They declined his offer. Apparently, they weren't up to doing their own dirty work. They wanted the Romans to do it for them. This would give Pilate the upper hand. They're not up for killing Jesus themselves, and Pilate doesn't want to, since he considers Jesus to be innocent. Looks like a stand off. So, just wait them out and eventually they'd get tired and/or hungry and go home. Pilate would have been home free and so would Jesus.
Interesting notes:
1. In Matthew as the Jews are crying out for Jesus to be crucified they call out, "His blood be upon us and on our children." Have so few words ever caused so much persecution and grief as these nine have? It's hard to believe anyone would say something like this. I suppose it could be argued that they were trying to make it easier for Pilate to condemn Jesus, as his blood would be on their hands, not Pilate's, but that's not how it works. Just saying someone's blood is on your hands doesn't make it so. And even if it did, putting it on your children as well? Who would do such a thing if they did think it worked that way?
2. According to Mark, Matthew and Luke Jesus says exactly 4 words to Pilate; that being, "You have said so." According to John, Jesus says a whopping 116 words to Pilate.
3. The man that Pilate releases from prison for the Jews (a passover feast tradition apparently) is named Barabbas, who is a rebel who committed murder during an insurrection according to Mark; a notorious prisoner according to Matthew; a man imprisoned for murder and for participating in an insurrection in Jerusalem according to Luke and a robber according to John. The Romans took insurrection seriously. It doesn't seem likely that this murderer and rebel would be the kind of prisoner that they would release. They usually crucified those found guilty of insurrection. One of the robbers that was crucified with Jesus would have made a more likely candidate for release. The chief priests etc. didn't care who was released as long as it wasn't Jesus.
4. In Mark, the high Priest, Caiaphas, asks Jesus if he is the Christ, the son of the blessed. Jesus replies, "I am; and you will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming with the clouds of heaven." In Matthew, the high priest asks Jesus if he is the Christ, the Son of God; to which he replies, "You have said so. But I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of power and coming on the clouds of heaven." In Luke, in response to "If you are the Christ, tell us." Jesus replies,"If I tell you, you will not believe; and if I ask you, you will not answer. But from now on the Son of man shall be seated at the right hand of the power of God." In John, Jesus says nothing remotely like this. Notice that in Luke, Jesus' reply no longer contains the words, "...you will see..." Most christian scholars believe that Luke was the third gospel written (approximately 80-85 CE), so a considerable amount of time had past since Jesus's death, making it likely that Caiaphas had already died when Luke's gospel was penned. This would make Jesus' prediction that Caiaphas would see Jesus return on the clouds of heaven rather unlikely. And when John's author penned his gospel a decade or two later still, the clock had certainly run out on Jesus' prediction, hence no similar quote in John. The author would have looked foolish if he had included a prediction from Jesus that all his readers would have known hadn't come true. It still hasn't, some two thousand years later.
5. Matthew 26:59-61, "Now the chief priests and the whole council sought false testimony against Jesus that they might put him to death, they found none, though many false witnesses came forward." False witnesses provide false testimony, right? So, many false witnesses came forward with their false testimony, but they couldn't find any. Does this make any sense?
Monday 24 February 2014
The Gospels - A Comparative Reading - Part 6 Jesus, The Arrest
The synoptic gospels' versions of this story are very similar Both Matthew and Luke borrow heavily from Mark for this one. There are only a few differences between them. Who came to arrest Jesus? All three have Judas leading a crowd (great crowd in Matthew) armed with clubs and swords. Who makes up this crowd? Mark and Matthew say they were people from the chief priests and the elders. (Mark adds "and the scribes".) Luke just says a crowd, but later Jesus speaks directly to the chief priests, the captains of the temple and the elders who "had come out against him". In other words, the chief priests, the captains and the elders are the crowd or at least part of it and not just people they had sent to represent them.
At this point someone draws a sword and cuts off the ear of the high priest's slave. None of the synoptic gospels identifies this person. For Mark, it's "one of those who stood by". For Matthew, it's "one of those who were with Jesus". For Luke, it's "one of them". It would seem unlikely the assailant would have been anyone from the crowd as they were the arresting party. Could some of Jesus' followers have tagged along? I suppose it's possible, but I don't think it is very likely since this happened after dark and I doubt the priests or elders would have advertised what they were up to. That would leave us with one of the disciples as the assailant since Jesus had been with them in the Garden of Gethsemane just before the arresting party arrived. This time it's Luke, not Matthew who embellishes the story. It's the high priest's slave's right ear that is cut off and Jesus says, "No more of this." and he touches his ear and heals him. It's not made clear whether he just stopped the bleeding or picked up his ear and reattached it or gave him a new ear. This is a significant embellishment.
John's author tells this story quite differently than the others. In his story, Judas procures a band of soldiers complete with their captain, as well as some officers from the chief priests and Pharisees. This is a very different "crowd" with a lot more power and authority. Jesus asks them, "Whom do you seek?" They tell him, "Jesus of Nazareth". Jesus replies, "I am he". When they hear this, they draw back and fall to the ground. The author provides no explanation for why this happens. It would seem there are only two possibilities. They do this on their own for some reason, or an external force does it to them. If it's the former, it would be hard to make sense of it. They're here to find Jesus. Jesus tells them they have. So why not just arrest him and take him away? Why fall to the ground? No surprise, they found who they were looking for. Was there something about Jesus that struck terror into them, that made them think they might be about to arrest someone who had awesome powers that they should fear? Evidently not, because they got up and Jesus asks them again, "Whom do you seek?" and again they reply, "Jesus of Nazareth". Jesus tells them, "I told you that I am he; so, if you seek me, let these men go", and they arrest him. If it's the latter, it still doesn't make any sense. No one else fell down so it couldn't have been an earthquake or a giant gust of wind or any other natural event that caused their fall. What's left but divine intervention? If that were the case they'd have taken off running for fear something far worse would happen to them if they continued with their plans to arrest Jesus. But they didn't do that. This appears to me to be another case of an author inserting a not very well thought out embellishment to his narrative. Perhaps he added it to make the story more miraculous, as Luke did with his healing miracle.
The assailant who attacks the high priest's slave is identified by John's author. It was Simon Peter. He also knows the name of the slave, Malchus. Jesus doesn't heal Malchus' ear in this version but, like Luke's author, John's identifies the lost ear as his right one.
Interesting notes:
1. Only in Luke does Jesus heal Malchus' ear.
2. The soldiers that Judas procures in John aren't identified. I think that they must be Roman soldiers since the Romans were in control of Judea at this time. Anyone else's "soldiers" would have been called rebels or enemies. What would have been the chances of Judas, a Jew, talking a Roman captain into coming out during the night and bringing some of his soldiers with him to arrest somebody the Romans didn't have their own orders to arrest. I'd think fairly slim.
3. I have problems believing any of the disciples would be armed with swords or any other weapons much less believe they would actually use them to attack someone. Jesus was preaching love your neighbours, your enemies, and to turn the other cheek, and do onto others, etc. So why would they be armed? Although in Luke (22:36), Jesus tells his disciples that if they don't have a sword they should sell their mantles and buy one. They say to him, "Look Lord, here are two." Jesus says, "It is enough." For what? Jesus says it is to fulfill the scripture in him, "And he was reckoned with transgressors". I still don't think it makes any sense.
4. In Mark and Matthew, Judas identifies Jesus by giving him a kiss so the arresting party will know who to apprehend. In Luke, he tries to kiss Jesus, but Jesus puts him off by saying, "Judas, would you betray the Son of man with a kiss?" In John, Jesus identifies himself. Judas doesn't have to. No Kiss.
5. In Matthew, Jesus says to Judas, "Friend, why are you here?" This seems redundant. Jesus already knows why he's there. He's just finished saying to his disciples, "...Rise, let us be going; see, my betrayer is at hand." Jesus' greeting of "friend" is a little strange under the circumstances. Perhaps he is being sarcastic, although, that's not really his style.
At this point someone draws a sword and cuts off the ear of the high priest's slave. None of the synoptic gospels identifies this person. For Mark, it's "one of those who stood by". For Matthew, it's "one of those who were with Jesus". For Luke, it's "one of them". It would seem unlikely the assailant would have been anyone from the crowd as they were the arresting party. Could some of Jesus' followers have tagged along? I suppose it's possible, but I don't think it is very likely since this happened after dark and I doubt the priests or elders would have advertised what they were up to. That would leave us with one of the disciples as the assailant since Jesus had been with them in the Garden of Gethsemane just before the arresting party arrived. This time it's Luke, not Matthew who embellishes the story. It's the high priest's slave's right ear that is cut off and Jesus says, "No more of this." and he touches his ear and heals him. It's not made clear whether he just stopped the bleeding or picked up his ear and reattached it or gave him a new ear. This is a significant embellishment.
John's author tells this story quite differently than the others. In his story, Judas procures a band of soldiers complete with their captain, as well as some officers from the chief priests and Pharisees. This is a very different "crowd" with a lot more power and authority. Jesus asks them, "Whom do you seek?" They tell him, "Jesus of Nazareth". Jesus replies, "I am he". When they hear this, they draw back and fall to the ground. The author provides no explanation for why this happens. It would seem there are only two possibilities. They do this on their own for some reason, or an external force does it to them. If it's the former, it would be hard to make sense of it. They're here to find Jesus. Jesus tells them they have. So why not just arrest him and take him away? Why fall to the ground? No surprise, they found who they were looking for. Was there something about Jesus that struck terror into them, that made them think they might be about to arrest someone who had awesome powers that they should fear? Evidently not, because they got up and Jesus asks them again, "Whom do you seek?" and again they reply, "Jesus of Nazareth". Jesus tells them, "I told you that I am he; so, if you seek me, let these men go", and they arrest him. If it's the latter, it still doesn't make any sense. No one else fell down so it couldn't have been an earthquake or a giant gust of wind or any other natural event that caused their fall. What's left but divine intervention? If that were the case they'd have taken off running for fear something far worse would happen to them if they continued with their plans to arrest Jesus. But they didn't do that. This appears to me to be another case of an author inserting a not very well thought out embellishment to his narrative. Perhaps he added it to make the story more miraculous, as Luke did with his healing miracle.
The assailant who attacks the high priest's slave is identified by John's author. It was Simon Peter. He also knows the name of the slave, Malchus. Jesus doesn't heal Malchus' ear in this version but, like Luke's author, John's identifies the lost ear as his right one.
Interesting notes:
1. Only in Luke does Jesus heal Malchus' ear.
2. The soldiers that Judas procures in John aren't identified. I think that they must be Roman soldiers since the Romans were in control of Judea at this time. Anyone else's "soldiers" would have been called rebels or enemies. What would have been the chances of Judas, a Jew, talking a Roman captain into coming out during the night and bringing some of his soldiers with him to arrest somebody the Romans didn't have their own orders to arrest. I'd think fairly slim.
3. I have problems believing any of the disciples would be armed with swords or any other weapons much less believe they would actually use them to attack someone. Jesus was preaching love your neighbours, your enemies, and to turn the other cheek, and do onto others, etc. So why would they be armed? Although in Luke (22:36), Jesus tells his disciples that if they don't have a sword they should sell their mantles and buy one. They say to him, "Look Lord, here are two." Jesus says, "It is enough." For what? Jesus says it is to fulfill the scripture in him, "And he was reckoned with transgressors". I still don't think it makes any sense.
4. In Mark and Matthew, Judas identifies Jesus by giving him a kiss so the arresting party will know who to apprehend. In Luke, he tries to kiss Jesus, but Jesus puts him off by saying, "Judas, would you betray the Son of man with a kiss?" In John, Jesus identifies himself. Judas doesn't have to. No Kiss.
5. In Matthew, Jesus says to Judas, "Friend, why are you here?" This seems redundant. Jesus already knows why he's there. He's just finished saying to his disciples, "...Rise, let us be going; see, my betrayer is at hand." Jesus' greeting of "friend" is a little strange under the circumstances. Perhaps he is being sarcastic, although, that's not really his style.
Friday 14 February 2014
The Gospels - A Comparative Reading - Part 5 The Fig Tree
In Mark's author's version of this story (Mark 11:12-25)) Jesus and his disciples are in the temple in Jerusalem. It's already late, so they go to Bethany and spend the night there. The next day they start back to Jerusalem, but before arriving in the city, Jesus finds himself hungry. He spies a fig tree in the distance and walks over to check it out, hoping to find a tasty snack. When he comes to it, all he finds on it are leaves, not a single fig. The author tells us that the reason it bears no fruit is that this is not the season for figs. Jesus becomes very angry and his disciples hear him say to the tree, "May no one ever eat fruit from you again." They proceed back to the temple in Jerusalem where Jesus creates a stir by driving out sellers and buyers and overturning the tables of the moneychangers.
This is rather strange stuff. Jesus has spent his entire earthly life in Galilee and Judea: unless we accept Matthew's version of Jesus' birth narrative; then we have to add Egypt to the above locales. How is it possible that Jesus does't know when the fig season is? He has traveled around the area extensively and no doubt enjoyed figs on numerous occasions, otherwise he wouldn't have been looking for figs this time. This would be like someone who lived all his life in the southern parts of Quebec or Ontario, or New England, expecting to find apples growing on trees in April, or tapping maple trees in August hoping to make some maple syrup. Let's not forget that most Christians believe that Jesus is God incarnate, and therefore, omniscient, and by definition would know what time of year to expect to find ripe figs on fig trees.
Jesus' behaviour here is bizarre, to say the least. The fig tree is leafed out, so it's likely healthy and will almost certainly produce fruit in season for the local people to enjoy. They'll be out of luck this year because Jesus, as we shall see, kills it. This seems like a total waste, to prove what? His behaviour also resembles that of a petulant child, who when told he or she can't play with a certain toy, smashes the toy, as if to say, "If I can't play with it, neither can anyone else."
The following morning Jesus and his disciples pass by the fig tree that Jesus cursed the day before and notice that it is withered away to its roots. Peter remarks on it and Jesus uses the occasion to remind the disciples of the great things that they can do (move mountains) through belief and prayer. They all return to Jerusalem.
Matthew's author, as we so often see, borrowed this story (Matthew 21:18-22) from Mark. He changes the quote from Jesus to, "May no fruit ever come from you again." ... a not an insignificant alteration. He must have recognized the problem of Jesus expecting to be able to pick some figs out of season, because he doesn't in fact mention that this isn't the fig season. This doesn't totally get him off the hook though, because he places this story within 24 hours of Jesus causing a ruckus in the temple, as does Mark, which according to Mark occurred during the off season for figs. Someone is making a mistake here. Either Mark's author is wrong about this not occurring during the fig season or Matthew's is making a serious omission in not telling us that it isn't the fig season.
Mark's author chronologically places this story before the temple incident (Jesus overturning tables etc.), Matthew's places it after the incident, a chronological contradiction. There is another contradiction between the stories. In Mark, there is no mention of the fig tree withering at once. Jesus and the disciples leave for Jerusalem without the knowledge of the tree withering. This is obvious, since the next day Peter is surprised to find the fig tree withered and calls Jesus' attention to it. In Matthew, "The fig tree withered at once." In other words, they leave for Jerusalem with the knowledge that the fig tree is withered. This is an irreconcilable contradiction. They don't pass by the tree the next day.
Given the obvious contradictions between the two versions and that both of them paint a less than flattering portrait of Jesus, one might be inclined to question the authenticity of the story itself. Luke's author may have agreed, since he takes a pass on this story, just as he did on the Jesus walking on water story. John's author had either never heard of this story, or he had, and perhaps just didn't think it had merit, since it is not included it in his gospel.
This is rather strange stuff. Jesus has spent his entire earthly life in Galilee and Judea: unless we accept Matthew's version of Jesus' birth narrative; then we have to add Egypt to the above locales. How is it possible that Jesus does't know when the fig season is? He has traveled around the area extensively and no doubt enjoyed figs on numerous occasions, otherwise he wouldn't have been looking for figs this time. This would be like someone who lived all his life in the southern parts of Quebec or Ontario, or New England, expecting to find apples growing on trees in April, or tapping maple trees in August hoping to make some maple syrup. Let's not forget that most Christians believe that Jesus is God incarnate, and therefore, omniscient, and by definition would know what time of year to expect to find ripe figs on fig trees.
Jesus' behaviour here is bizarre, to say the least. The fig tree is leafed out, so it's likely healthy and will almost certainly produce fruit in season for the local people to enjoy. They'll be out of luck this year because Jesus, as we shall see, kills it. This seems like a total waste, to prove what? His behaviour also resembles that of a petulant child, who when told he or she can't play with a certain toy, smashes the toy, as if to say, "If I can't play with it, neither can anyone else."
The following morning Jesus and his disciples pass by the fig tree that Jesus cursed the day before and notice that it is withered away to its roots. Peter remarks on it and Jesus uses the occasion to remind the disciples of the great things that they can do (move mountains) through belief and prayer. They all return to Jerusalem.
Matthew's author, as we so often see, borrowed this story (Matthew 21:18-22) from Mark. He changes the quote from Jesus to, "May no fruit ever come from you again." ... a not an insignificant alteration. He must have recognized the problem of Jesus expecting to be able to pick some figs out of season, because he doesn't in fact mention that this isn't the fig season. This doesn't totally get him off the hook though, because he places this story within 24 hours of Jesus causing a ruckus in the temple, as does Mark, which according to Mark occurred during the off season for figs. Someone is making a mistake here. Either Mark's author is wrong about this not occurring during the fig season or Matthew's is making a serious omission in not telling us that it isn't the fig season.
Mark's author chronologically places this story before the temple incident (Jesus overturning tables etc.), Matthew's places it after the incident, a chronological contradiction. There is another contradiction between the stories. In Mark, there is no mention of the fig tree withering at once. Jesus and the disciples leave for Jerusalem without the knowledge of the tree withering. This is obvious, since the next day Peter is surprised to find the fig tree withered and calls Jesus' attention to it. In Matthew, "The fig tree withered at once." In other words, they leave for Jerusalem with the knowledge that the fig tree is withered. This is an irreconcilable contradiction. They don't pass by the tree the next day.
Given the obvious contradictions between the two versions and that both of them paint a less than flattering portrait of Jesus, one might be inclined to question the authenticity of the story itself. Luke's author may have agreed, since he takes a pass on this story, just as he did on the Jesus walking on water story. John's author had either never heard of this story, or he had, and perhaps just didn't think it had merit, since it is not included it in his gospel.
Monday 10 February 2014
The Gospels - A Comparative Reading - Part 4 Jesus, The Birth Narratives
Matthew and Luke are the only two gospels that contain a birth narrative for Jesus, so we have only two stories to look at. The author of Matthew starts his gospel by presenting a genealogy for Jesus. This is strange because before we finish reading the first page of the gospel we learn that Joseph is not Jesus' biological father. This is really Joseph's genealogy and is irrelevant to this story. This is Jesus' story not Joseph's.
Mary, Joseph's betrothed, is found to be with child of the Holy Spirit before she and Joseph had ever "come together". Joseph resolves to quietly divorce her (I don't believe they were married so I don't know why this was possible or necessary) to avoid putting her to shame. I would have thought that being pregnant and unmarried during this era would have been shameful and he would have wanted to marry her as soon as possible to spare her this embarrassment. During a dream an angel of the Lord tells Joseph it's okay for him to take Mary as his wife; the child she conceived is of the Holy Spirit. So, the annunciation in Matthew is to Joseph and not Mary. Mary must have found out what was happening to her from Joseph. This must have seemed like a cart full of weird coming down on her. She finds herself pregnant without ever having had sex with a man and her fiancé tells her he had a dream in which an angel of the Lord explained to him that her child is of the Holy Spirit. It's a wonder she didn't run for the hills.
The author of Luke also provides a genealogy for Jesus. However, there are many discrepancies between his version and the one that appears in Matthew, and not just that Matthew's goes back to Abraham and Luke's goes back to Adam. For example, Joseph's father is Jacob in Matthew's genealogy and Heli's in Luke's. Some apologists have attempted to harmonize the discrepancies in the genealogies by claiming that one is Joseph's and one is Mary's. This doesn't make sense because both genealogies end up with Joseph. Mary would certainly have been in her own genealogy. And again, still irrelevant.
Luke's annunciation is to Mary and not to Joseph, and not in a dream. The angel Gabriel is sent in person by God to tell Mary she will conceive a son to be named Jesus. This is to happen when the Holy Spirit comes upon her and the power of the most high overshadows her. So in Luke, Mary is not pregnant yet, she just knows she will be. Why didn't she tell Joseph about her experience with Gabriel and they could have gotten married ASAP before the Holy Spirit performed its task and no one would have been the wiser.
According to Matthew, Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Neither Nazareth, nor a trip from there is mentioned, so Mary and Joseph must have lived in Bethlehem and Jesus must have been born in their home. There is no mention of an inn, or a stable, or of any shepherds in Matthew's narrative. Herod the Great was the king of Judea at this time, according to Matthew, although historians generally record his death as having taken place in 4 BCE. Wise men, or Magi, from the east appear in Judea, saying, "Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we have seen his star in the east, and have come to worship him." This is hard to fathom. They see a star shining in the east and from this they draw the following conclusions. There has been a male child born in Judea, he will become king of the Jews when he grows up and they know that this star is his. That's a lot of highly specific information to garner from a light in the night sky. The number of Magi isn't mentioned.
Herod hears of these men and doesn't like what he's hearing. This future king could grow up and usurp his throne. He summons them to Jerusalem and extracts what information he can from them. In the meantime, Herod asks the chief priests and scribes about this future king and where he will be born. They tell him Bethlehem. Herod sends the wise men to Bethlehem and asks that they report back to him. The star from the east suddenly appears before them and guides them to that town. This seems completely unnecessary. The town is not all that far from Jerusalem (approx. 10 kilometers) and almost anyone they asked could have given them directions. The star stops over the house (yes, house not stable) of Joseph and Mary. Let's think about this. For a light source to be seen as being over a particular building, it would have to be only a few hundred feet from the earth's surface. This is not an ordinary star or it would fry the entire planet. It would have to be something like a large lantern, but then how could it have been seen way off to the east? This doesn't make sense.
Are these wise men Jewish? They are not being identified as Jewish. Indicating that they came from the east would suggest they were not from Judea, but from further east, beyond Judea. It doesn't seem very likely that they were. And if they're not, their behaviour is strange indeed. Why would a future Jewish king be on their radar and why would they care if it were? And why would they want to travel afar and worship him? He won't be their king.
The wise men find Mary and Jesus in their home. They worship him and give him their gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh. They go straight home, having been warned in a dream not to return to Herod. An angel of the Lord appears to Joseph in a dream and tells him to flee to Egypt with his family and to stay there until he tells him, for Herod wants to kill their newborn son. They do so, and remain there until Herod's death. Herod goes on a killing rampage and executes all the male children he can find under the age of two, living in and around Bethlehem. There are no non-canonical historical records that corroborate any such slaughter of children taking place in this area at this time. This would obviously have been a major event in Judean history.
After Herod's death, an angel of the Lord appears to Joseph once again in a dream, and tells him to return to Israel as Jesus' life is no longer in danger. They start their return to Bethlehem, but learn that after Herod's death his son Archelaus now reigns over Judea. They are nervous about returning and are warned, in yet another dream, so they proceed further north, to Galilee and settle in the city of Nazareth.
Luke's birth narrative is very different from Matthew's. As we've seen the annunciation is to Mary not Joseph. Mary and Joseph live in Nazareth from the beginning and not Bethlehem. This poses a problem for Luke's author; how to get Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem so Jesus can be born there? This is seen to be important because it was believed that future kings or messiahs would be born in Bethlehem, the city of David. The author solves this problem by saying that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all in the world should be enrolled and Mary and Joseph must go to Bethlehem to register. There is a lot wrong with this. First of all, it is well established that the Romans did conduct censuses, but there is no record of them conducting a census at this time in Judea and Galilee. Secondly, they only required men to register. They wanted to know where the men lived and how much they were worth; that is, who could they collect taxes from and how much could they collect, and where did they have to go to collect them. Mary, not being a male, obviously didn't have to register, so she wasn't obliged to accompany her husband to Bethlehem. If she went with him it would have been her choice. Mary must have been approximately nine months pregnant at the time they traveled to Bethlehem. How many women who are nine months pregnant would volunteer to make a long trip (approximately 113 kilometers) by foot, cart or bouncing around on a donkey, just to keep their husband company? I'm guessing none. Thirdly, Joseph, for he is of King David's lineage, had to register in Bethlehem, the city in which King David was born. According'to Luke's genealogy there are approximately 40 generations between Joseph and David. It seems ridiculous the have to delve that far back into the past to figure out where you had to register for a simple census. If Luke's author meant that men had to register in the place of birth of their family patriarch, this would also be problematic because after so much time there must have been a lot of inter-family marriages, drastically blurring the lines between the patriarchal families; again making it impossible to know where one should go to register. And let's not forget the Romans only wanted to know where you (if you were a male) lived, not where your long deceased relative was born. Lastly, Nazareth was in Galilee and Bethlehem was in Judah. Why on earth would someone living in Galilee, a more or less independent state have to register and pay taxes in Judea, a part of the Roman Empire?
Continuing with Luke's story. When Joseph and Mary get to Bethlehem they can't find a room anywhere so they find a stable where Mary gives birth to Jesus. An angel of the Lord appears to some shepherds tending their flocks nearby. He tells them of Jesus' birth. The shepherds go to Bethlehem and find Mary, Joseph and her baby. They tell others what they have seen and heard. Mary and Joseph return to their home in Nazareth.
Missing from Luke's narrative are the annunciation to Joseph, the wise men, the star of Bethlehem, Herod and the slaughter of the children, Mary and Joseph's flight to Egypt and their subsequent return to Israel, and Joseph's four dreams in which he receives instructions and warnings from an angel of God.
Missing from Matthew's narrative are the annunciation to Mary, the Roman census, the trip from Nazareth to Bethlehem, the stable birth, and the shepherds.
Interesting Notes:
1. In the Matthew narrative the wise men have one dream in which they receive a warning from an angel of the Lord. Joseph has four dreams in which he receives warnings or instructions from an angel of the Lord. Matthew - five divine communication dreams; Luke - zero. In Matthew, God communicates with Joseph and the wise men only in dreams via an angel. In Luke, he communicates only with Mary, and then, only via an in-person angel, namely Gabriel. It would seem to me that the latter method of communication would be far superior to the former. If an angel of God sat on the end of my bed, I'd sit up and take notice of what was being said. However, if I dreamed an angel of God sat on the end of my bed and talked to me, when I woke up, I'd probably think to myself, "Wow, hell of a dream", and go about my business. My point being, how would Joseph know which of his dreams were divinely inspired and which were just his own natural dreams. It seems to me dreams are a poor conduit for conveying information to people. I doubt God would use them, and apparently so did Luke's author.
2. The four gospels are anonymously written. The originals are all lost or destroyed, as are the originals of all the books of the new testament. The names that we now attach to them were assigned to the gospels long after they were written.
Mary, Joseph's betrothed, is found to be with child of the Holy Spirit before she and Joseph had ever "come together". Joseph resolves to quietly divorce her (I don't believe they were married so I don't know why this was possible or necessary) to avoid putting her to shame. I would have thought that being pregnant and unmarried during this era would have been shameful and he would have wanted to marry her as soon as possible to spare her this embarrassment. During a dream an angel of the Lord tells Joseph it's okay for him to take Mary as his wife; the child she conceived is of the Holy Spirit. So, the annunciation in Matthew is to Joseph and not Mary. Mary must have found out what was happening to her from Joseph. This must have seemed like a cart full of weird coming down on her. She finds herself pregnant without ever having had sex with a man and her fiancé tells her he had a dream in which an angel of the Lord explained to him that her child is of the Holy Spirit. It's a wonder she didn't run for the hills.
The author of Luke also provides a genealogy for Jesus. However, there are many discrepancies between his version and the one that appears in Matthew, and not just that Matthew's goes back to Abraham and Luke's goes back to Adam. For example, Joseph's father is Jacob in Matthew's genealogy and Heli's in Luke's. Some apologists have attempted to harmonize the discrepancies in the genealogies by claiming that one is Joseph's and one is Mary's. This doesn't make sense because both genealogies end up with Joseph. Mary would certainly have been in her own genealogy. And again, still irrelevant.
Luke's annunciation is to Mary and not to Joseph, and not in a dream. The angel Gabriel is sent in person by God to tell Mary she will conceive a son to be named Jesus. This is to happen when the Holy Spirit comes upon her and the power of the most high overshadows her. So in Luke, Mary is not pregnant yet, she just knows she will be. Why didn't she tell Joseph about her experience with Gabriel and they could have gotten married ASAP before the Holy Spirit performed its task and no one would have been the wiser.
According to Matthew, Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Neither Nazareth, nor a trip from there is mentioned, so Mary and Joseph must have lived in Bethlehem and Jesus must have been born in their home. There is no mention of an inn, or a stable, or of any shepherds in Matthew's narrative. Herod the Great was the king of Judea at this time, according to Matthew, although historians generally record his death as having taken place in 4 BCE. Wise men, or Magi, from the east appear in Judea, saying, "Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we have seen his star in the east, and have come to worship him." This is hard to fathom. They see a star shining in the east and from this they draw the following conclusions. There has been a male child born in Judea, he will become king of the Jews when he grows up and they know that this star is his. That's a lot of highly specific information to garner from a light in the night sky. The number of Magi isn't mentioned.
Herod hears of these men and doesn't like what he's hearing. This future king could grow up and usurp his throne. He summons them to Jerusalem and extracts what information he can from them. In the meantime, Herod asks the chief priests and scribes about this future king and where he will be born. They tell him Bethlehem. Herod sends the wise men to Bethlehem and asks that they report back to him. The star from the east suddenly appears before them and guides them to that town. This seems completely unnecessary. The town is not all that far from Jerusalem (approx. 10 kilometers) and almost anyone they asked could have given them directions. The star stops over the house (yes, house not stable) of Joseph and Mary. Let's think about this. For a light source to be seen as being over a particular building, it would have to be only a few hundred feet from the earth's surface. This is not an ordinary star or it would fry the entire planet. It would have to be something like a large lantern, but then how could it have been seen way off to the east? This doesn't make sense.
Are these wise men Jewish? They are not being identified as Jewish. Indicating that they came from the east would suggest they were not from Judea, but from further east, beyond Judea. It doesn't seem very likely that they were. And if they're not, their behaviour is strange indeed. Why would a future Jewish king be on their radar and why would they care if it were? And why would they want to travel afar and worship him? He won't be their king.
The wise men find Mary and Jesus in their home. They worship him and give him their gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh. They go straight home, having been warned in a dream not to return to Herod. An angel of the Lord appears to Joseph in a dream and tells him to flee to Egypt with his family and to stay there until he tells him, for Herod wants to kill their newborn son. They do so, and remain there until Herod's death. Herod goes on a killing rampage and executes all the male children he can find under the age of two, living in and around Bethlehem. There are no non-canonical historical records that corroborate any such slaughter of children taking place in this area at this time. This would obviously have been a major event in Judean history.
After Herod's death, an angel of the Lord appears to Joseph once again in a dream, and tells him to return to Israel as Jesus' life is no longer in danger. They start their return to Bethlehem, but learn that after Herod's death his son Archelaus now reigns over Judea. They are nervous about returning and are warned, in yet another dream, so they proceed further north, to Galilee and settle in the city of Nazareth.
Luke's birth narrative is very different from Matthew's. As we've seen the annunciation is to Mary not Joseph. Mary and Joseph live in Nazareth from the beginning and not Bethlehem. This poses a problem for Luke's author; how to get Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem so Jesus can be born there? This is seen to be important because it was believed that future kings or messiahs would be born in Bethlehem, the city of David. The author solves this problem by saying that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all in the world should be enrolled and Mary and Joseph must go to Bethlehem to register. There is a lot wrong with this. First of all, it is well established that the Romans did conduct censuses, but there is no record of them conducting a census at this time in Judea and Galilee. Secondly, they only required men to register. They wanted to know where the men lived and how much they were worth; that is, who could they collect taxes from and how much could they collect, and where did they have to go to collect them. Mary, not being a male, obviously didn't have to register, so she wasn't obliged to accompany her husband to Bethlehem. If she went with him it would have been her choice. Mary must have been approximately nine months pregnant at the time they traveled to Bethlehem. How many women who are nine months pregnant would volunteer to make a long trip (approximately 113 kilometers) by foot, cart or bouncing around on a donkey, just to keep their husband company? I'm guessing none. Thirdly, Joseph, for he is of King David's lineage, had to register in Bethlehem, the city in which King David was born. According'to Luke's genealogy there are approximately 40 generations between Joseph and David. It seems ridiculous the have to delve that far back into the past to figure out where you had to register for a simple census. If Luke's author meant that men had to register in the place of birth of their family patriarch, this would also be problematic because after so much time there must have been a lot of inter-family marriages, drastically blurring the lines between the patriarchal families; again making it impossible to know where one should go to register. And let's not forget the Romans only wanted to know where you (if you were a male) lived, not where your long deceased relative was born. Lastly, Nazareth was in Galilee and Bethlehem was in Judah. Why on earth would someone living in Galilee, a more or less independent state have to register and pay taxes in Judea, a part of the Roman Empire?
Continuing with Luke's story. When Joseph and Mary get to Bethlehem they can't find a room anywhere so they find a stable where Mary gives birth to Jesus. An angel of the Lord appears to some shepherds tending their flocks nearby. He tells them of Jesus' birth. The shepherds go to Bethlehem and find Mary, Joseph and her baby. They tell others what they have seen and heard. Mary and Joseph return to their home in Nazareth.
Missing from Luke's narrative are the annunciation to Joseph, the wise men, the star of Bethlehem, Herod and the slaughter of the children, Mary and Joseph's flight to Egypt and their subsequent return to Israel, and Joseph's four dreams in which he receives instructions and warnings from an angel of God.
Missing from Matthew's narrative are the annunciation to Mary, the Roman census, the trip from Nazareth to Bethlehem, the stable birth, and the shepherds.
Interesting Notes:
1. In the Matthew narrative the wise men have one dream in which they receive a warning from an angel of the Lord. Joseph has four dreams in which he receives warnings or instructions from an angel of the Lord. Matthew - five divine communication dreams; Luke - zero. In Matthew, God communicates with Joseph and the wise men only in dreams via an angel. In Luke, he communicates only with Mary, and then, only via an in-person angel, namely Gabriel. It would seem to me that the latter method of communication would be far superior to the former. If an angel of God sat on the end of my bed, I'd sit up and take notice of what was being said. However, if I dreamed an angel of God sat on the end of my bed and talked to me, when I woke up, I'd probably think to myself, "Wow, hell of a dream", and go about my business. My point being, how would Joseph know which of his dreams were divinely inspired and which were just his own natural dreams. It seems to me dreams are a poor conduit for conveying information to people. I doubt God would use them, and apparently so did Luke's author.
2. The four gospels are anonymously written. The originals are all lost or destroyed, as are the originals of all the books of the new testament. The names that we now attach to them were assigned to the gospels long after they were written.
Saturday 1 February 2014
The Gospels: A Comparative Reading- Part 3 Jesus on the Water
I expect one of the most beloved of Jesus' miracles is the one in which he walks on water. Mark's author's version of this miracle has Jesus making his disciples get into a boat and telling them to go before him to the other side to Bethsaida while he dismisses the crowd. They do so, but when Jesus comes down to the shore, he sees "they were distressed in rowing, for the wind was against them". They see a man coming to them, walking on the water. They fear he is a ghost. Now they are even more afraid until Jesus identifies himself and gets into the boat with them and the wind ceases.
Matthew's author borrows this story from Mark, as he often does, changing only a few words here and there. However, he adds to and embellishes the story as he did with the events that took place at the time of Jesus' death and resurrection. In his story there is a dramatic twist. When Jesus identifies himself, Peter says to him, "Lord if it is you, bid me come to you on the water." Jesus bids him to come and Peter gets out of the boat, doesn't sink, and starts walking across the water to Jesus. The wind comes up and Peter becomes afraid and starts to sink. Jesus reaches out his hand and catches him and says, "O man of little faith, why did you doubt?" They walk to the boat together and get in and when they do the wind ceases.
The story doesn't make it clear whether Jesus is using his divine powers to keep Peter on the surface of the water or whether Peter is able to do so on his own. Jesus often tells the disciples that they can do great things if only they believe that they can. If Jesus is using his powers here it would be a cruel practical joke to scare Peter by allowing him to start sinking for a second before rescuing him. This would be so out of character for Jesus, I think we can safely rule this out. Or perhaps Jesus' powers temporarily fail him allowing Peter to start slipping into the water. This doesn't seem very probable either, so I think we can safely rule this out as well. However, all we're left with is Peter managing this all on his own. Human beings can't normally defy gravity and walk on water, but perhaps Peter is prepared to test Jesus' promise to the disciples that if they prayed for something and could imagine it being done, it would be done. I think we can safely assume that Peter had never before walked on water, so he wouldn't have known he could. But he must have thought he could, hoped he could, believed he could or had faith that he could. One could argue that when the wind came up, Peter's faith faltered and he started to sink. At that point though, I don't think faith was an issue. I think you could say it took faith to throw one leg over the side of the boat and test the water, so to speak, and a little less faith to throw the second leg over the side, and even less to let go of the side of the boat. After standing on the water and taking a step or two he no longer needs faith that he can walk on water, he now possesses the knowledge that he can walk on water. How does he know he can do this? Because he's doing it. He has solid evidence. A bit of wind can't alter the knowledge he now possesses. It makes no sense for Peter to start sinking and for Jesus to accuse him of having little faith.
Luke's author does something amazing with this story. He leaves it out of his gospel altogether. You can read Luke from the first verse of the first chapter to the last verse of the last chapter and you'll never read anything about Jesus walking on water. Why? For me this is a huge mystery. This is a major league, gravity defying miracle and Luke's author takes a complete pass on it. It would seem to be virtually impossible for him not to have known about this miracle. It's in Mark, and as we know he borrowed liberally from that source. Is it possible that he didn't read that part? It seems unlikely since he included the miracle of feeding the 5000, which in Mark appears just before the walking on water miracle. It would seem that if he saw one he'd have seen the other. Perhaps he had some information from another source that indicated this story was spurious, so he left it out, or maybe he just didn't believe it had really happened. Perhaps he knew of it and believed it had really happened, but thought it was too over the top for his readers to believe Jesus had performed this miracle, and including it would cast a shadow of doubt over the validity of his entire gospel. I believe we are left with a mystery with no resolution. Luke's author took this one with him to his grave.
In the gospel of John, the author's version of this story is in close sync with Mark's, except that he doesn't claim to have any knowledge of Jesus' intentions on the water. (See note 2 below.)
Interesting Notes:
1. The only one of Jesus' miracles that appears in all four of the gospels is the feeding of the multitude (or the 5000).
2. In Mark's version of this story the author tells us that as Jesus was coming to the disciples on the water, (quoting from Mark), "He meant to pass them by, but when they saw him walking on the sea......". Now, Jesus sees that the wind is against them and that they are distressed. They are afraid and in trouble and he intends to pass them by and what, hope they make it safely to the shore where he'll meet up with them? He walks all the way out on the water, but doesn't intend to help them? He changes his mind only when they spot him and call to him. This doesn't seem plausible. In addition, it seems very unlikely that Mark's author would have known what Jesus' intentions were, some 40 years after the fact. Since the author never met Jesus, the only way this information could have gotten to him would be through the disciples and those that they told, and then, only if Jesus had told the disciples in the first place that it had been his intention to pass them by while crossing the sea and to abandon them to their fate upon the waters. Not very likely. I think this is an example of an author embellishing his story with a not very well thought out detail.
3. This miracle is also found in other traditions, Buddhism, for example. Quoting from (Mahavastu 3.328.6; Lalitavistara 528), "After enlightenment, the teacher (Gautama Buddha)) went to Varanasi on foot. In this journey he wanted to cross (the) river Ganga, but being unable to pay the fare to (the) boatman, crossed it through(the) air." And from Asvaghosa who says the Buddha "walked in the air; on the water as if on dry land." (Saunerananda 3.23)
Also in the Buddhist tradition, the story of a lay disciple on his way to hear the Buddha preach: "He arrived at the bank of the river Aciravati in the evening. As the ferryman had drawn the boat up on the beach, and gone to listen to the doctrine, the disciple saw no boat at the ferry, so finding joy in making the Buddha the object of his meditation he walked across the river. His feet did not sink in the water. He went as though on the surface of the earth, but when he reached the middle he saw waves. Then his joy in meditating on the Buddha grew small, and his feet began to sink. But making firm his joy in meditating on the Buddha, he went on the surface of the water, entered the Jetavana, saluted the teacher, and sat on one side." (Introduction to Jataka Tale 190).*
*Robert M. Price, The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man (Prometheus Books, 2003), p. 156-157.
Matthew's author borrows this story from Mark, as he often does, changing only a few words here and there. However, he adds to and embellishes the story as he did with the events that took place at the time of Jesus' death and resurrection. In his story there is a dramatic twist. When Jesus identifies himself, Peter says to him, "Lord if it is you, bid me come to you on the water." Jesus bids him to come and Peter gets out of the boat, doesn't sink, and starts walking across the water to Jesus. The wind comes up and Peter becomes afraid and starts to sink. Jesus reaches out his hand and catches him and says, "O man of little faith, why did you doubt?" They walk to the boat together and get in and when they do the wind ceases.
The story doesn't make it clear whether Jesus is using his divine powers to keep Peter on the surface of the water or whether Peter is able to do so on his own. Jesus often tells the disciples that they can do great things if only they believe that they can. If Jesus is using his powers here it would be a cruel practical joke to scare Peter by allowing him to start sinking for a second before rescuing him. This would be so out of character for Jesus, I think we can safely rule this out. Or perhaps Jesus' powers temporarily fail him allowing Peter to start slipping into the water. This doesn't seem very probable either, so I think we can safely rule this out as well. However, all we're left with is Peter managing this all on his own. Human beings can't normally defy gravity and walk on water, but perhaps Peter is prepared to test Jesus' promise to the disciples that if they prayed for something and could imagine it being done, it would be done. I think we can safely assume that Peter had never before walked on water, so he wouldn't have known he could. But he must have thought he could, hoped he could, believed he could or had faith that he could. One could argue that when the wind came up, Peter's faith faltered and he started to sink. At that point though, I don't think faith was an issue. I think you could say it took faith to throw one leg over the side of the boat and test the water, so to speak, and a little less faith to throw the second leg over the side, and even less to let go of the side of the boat. After standing on the water and taking a step or two he no longer needs faith that he can walk on water, he now possesses the knowledge that he can walk on water. How does he know he can do this? Because he's doing it. He has solid evidence. A bit of wind can't alter the knowledge he now possesses. It makes no sense for Peter to start sinking and for Jesus to accuse him of having little faith.
Luke's author does something amazing with this story. He leaves it out of his gospel altogether. You can read Luke from the first verse of the first chapter to the last verse of the last chapter and you'll never read anything about Jesus walking on water. Why? For me this is a huge mystery. This is a major league, gravity defying miracle and Luke's author takes a complete pass on it. It would seem to be virtually impossible for him not to have known about this miracle. It's in Mark, and as we know he borrowed liberally from that source. Is it possible that he didn't read that part? It seems unlikely since he included the miracle of feeding the 5000, which in Mark appears just before the walking on water miracle. It would seem that if he saw one he'd have seen the other. Perhaps he had some information from another source that indicated this story was spurious, so he left it out, or maybe he just didn't believe it had really happened. Perhaps he knew of it and believed it had really happened, but thought it was too over the top for his readers to believe Jesus had performed this miracle, and including it would cast a shadow of doubt over the validity of his entire gospel. I believe we are left with a mystery with no resolution. Luke's author took this one with him to his grave.
In the gospel of John, the author's version of this story is in close sync with Mark's, except that he doesn't claim to have any knowledge of Jesus' intentions on the water. (See note 2 below.)
Interesting Notes:
1. The only one of Jesus' miracles that appears in all four of the gospels is the feeding of the multitude (or the 5000).
2. In Mark's version of this story the author tells us that as Jesus was coming to the disciples on the water, (quoting from Mark), "He meant to pass them by, but when they saw him walking on the sea......". Now, Jesus sees that the wind is against them and that they are distressed. They are afraid and in trouble and he intends to pass them by and what, hope they make it safely to the shore where he'll meet up with them? He walks all the way out on the water, but doesn't intend to help them? He changes his mind only when they spot him and call to him. This doesn't seem plausible. In addition, it seems very unlikely that Mark's author would have known what Jesus' intentions were, some 40 years after the fact. Since the author never met Jesus, the only way this information could have gotten to him would be through the disciples and those that they told, and then, only if Jesus had told the disciples in the first place that it had been his intention to pass them by while crossing the sea and to abandon them to their fate upon the waters. Not very likely. I think this is an example of an author embellishing his story with a not very well thought out detail.
3. This miracle is also found in other traditions, Buddhism, for example. Quoting from (Mahavastu 3.328.6; Lalitavistara 528), "After enlightenment, the teacher (Gautama Buddha)) went to Varanasi on foot. In this journey he wanted to cross (the) river Ganga, but being unable to pay the fare to (the) boatman, crossed it through(the) air." And from Asvaghosa who says the Buddha "walked in the air; on the water as if on dry land." (Saunerananda 3.23)
Also in the Buddhist tradition, the story of a lay disciple on his way to hear the Buddha preach: "He arrived at the bank of the river Aciravati in the evening. As the ferryman had drawn the boat up on the beach, and gone to listen to the doctrine, the disciple saw no boat at the ferry, so finding joy in making the Buddha the object of his meditation he walked across the river. His feet did not sink in the water. He went as though on the surface of the earth, but when he reached the middle he saw waves. Then his joy in meditating on the Buddha grew small, and his feet began to sink. But making firm his joy in meditating on the Buddha, he went on the surface of the water, entered the Jetavana, saluted the teacher, and sat on one side." (Introduction to Jataka Tale 190).*
*Robert M. Price, The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man (Prometheus Books, 2003), p. 156-157.
Friday 24 January 2014
The Gospels: A Comparative Reading - Part 2 Jesus' Last Words
According to the author of Mark, Jesus' last words before he died on the cross were, "My God , my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?". The author of Matthew, who borrowed liberally from Mark, used these exact same words as Jesus' last utterance. This seems like a very strange thing for Jesus to say. How has God forsaken him? Jesus has been telling his disciples that he must be rejected and must suffer and die. His disciples never seem to understand this, but Jesus certainly does. So what has happened? Jesus has been rejected and is now suffering and dying. It looks like everything is going according to plan. What could God have done to prevent Jesus from saying that He had forsaken him? Removed him from the cross, made him feel no pain? Jesus wasn't expecting God to do either of these things as it would have changed everything, and if he did want them done, for some reason, he could certainly have done them himself, after all, he is purported to have performed a miracle or two.
It seems very unlikely that Jesus uttered the words that Mark's and Matthew's authors attributed to him. The authors of the gospels of Luke and John must have thought the same. Luke's author, who like Matthew's borrowed liberally from Mark, changed Jesus' last words to, "Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit." John's author has Jesus uttering these few words, "It is finished."
So, what were Jesus' last words? We evidently don't know. Personally, I find Luke's words the most believable of these quotations for Jesus, or any other dying religious person to have said at the end of their life, but that doesn't make it necessarily true in Jesus' case. The most popular last words are Mark's and Matthew's at 2 to 1, but popularity doesn't necessary lead to the truth either. So, what do we know? We know that if one wanted to find out what Jesus' final words on the cross were, the gospels are a contradictory and unreliable source for this information.
It seems very unlikely that Jesus uttered the words that Mark's and Matthew's authors attributed to him. The authors of the gospels of Luke and John must have thought the same. Luke's author, who like Matthew's borrowed liberally from Mark, changed Jesus' last words to, "Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit." John's author has Jesus uttering these few words, "It is finished."
So, what were Jesus' last words? We evidently don't know. Personally, I find Luke's words the most believable of these quotations for Jesus, or any other dying religious person to have said at the end of their life, but that doesn't make it necessarily true in Jesus' case. The most popular last words are Mark's and Matthew's at 2 to 1, but popularity doesn't necessary lead to the truth either. So, what do we know? We know that if one wanted to find out what Jesus' final words on the cross were, the gospels are a contradictory and unreliable source for this information.
Saturday 18 January 2014
The Gospels: A Comparative Reading - Part 1 The Centurion
And Jesus uttered a loud cry, and
breathed his last. And the curtain of
the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And when the centurion, who stood facing him, saw that he thus
breathed his last, he said, “Truly, this man was the Son* of God!”
Mark 15:37-39
This doesn’t seem to make any
sense. The authors of Mark, Matthew and
Luke all write that the curtain in the temple was torn at the time of Jesus’
death. However, Mark’s centurion could
not have known this as he was not in the temple at that time. He was on Golgotha facing Jesus when Jesus died. What would have made the centurion
declare this man the “Son of God”? He
has just seen a crucified man die. What
else would he have expected? Did he
declare the next man to die to be another Son of God? I doubt it. His declaration would have made more sense if Jesus
hadn’t died as he would have been expecting.
The only other unusual event that
occurred that day according to all three synoptic gospel authors was “darkness
over all the land” between the 6th and 9th hours. It seems like no one present thought this
was very unusual since no one reacted to it during those three hours. Perhaps the sky had become overcast with
heavy dark nimbus clouds, which blocked most of the sunlight between those
hours.
If those
present had thought for a moment that the unusual darkness was a manifestation
of God’s anger or displeasure at what they were doing the centurion would
certainly have made his declaration earlier than he did, and the soldiers,
chief priests and local folk would have been clamouring to get the three men
(they wouldn’t have known which man’s imminent death would be angering God)
down from the crosses before they died, in an attempt to avoid the full force
of God’s perceived impending wrath.
The
centurion’s choice of words is curious.
Jesus was being mockingly referred to as the King of the Jews. It would have made more sense if he had
said, “Truly, this man was the King of the Jews”. Even Jesus, in Mark at least,
was frequently referring to himself as the 'Son of Man'. Where would the
centurion have gotten the ‘the Son of God’ designation from? He must have
thought they were crucifying a man claiming to be a Christ, a king of the Jews,
a potential rebel against the Roman Empire. No ‘Son of God’ reference from
there either.
And let's not forget that the centurion was a Roman and would very likely have worshiped the Roman gods, of which there were were many, and not the Jewish god. If, for whatever reason, he thought that Jesus was divine he would have been more likely to say, "Truly, this man was the son of a god." or "Truly, this man was the son of Jupiter. ( or Mars or .....).
And let's not forget that the centurion was a Roman and would very likely have worshiped the Roman gods, of which there were were many, and not the Jewish god. If, for whatever reason, he thought that Jesus was divine he would have been more likely to say, "Truly, this man was the son of a god." or "Truly, this man was the son of Jupiter. ( or Mars or .....).
Matthew
adds some new elements to this scene.
Not only does the temple curtain tear, but the earth shakes, rocks are
split and tombs open, and holy men rise from their graves after the
resurrection, and go into Jerusalem where they are seen by many. The centurion
AND those that are with him, keeping watch over Jesus, utter, “Truly this was
the Son of God.” See Matthew 27:51-54.
Earthquakes are a natural occurrence.
However, given the timing of the event one couldn’t fault them for
reading something miraculous into it.
This would make their declaration more reasonable, but still wouldn’t
solve the problem of their ‘Son of God” description for Jesus. The dead rising from their graves after the
resurrection obviously couldn’t have affected their declaration.
In Luke’s version of the crucifixion the sky darkens and the
temple curtain tears. Contrary to what the authors of Mark and Matthew record,
the centurion declares,
“Certainly, this man was innocent.” What new evidence has he seen that would
lead him to draw this conclusion?
Interesting Notes:
- The author of John’s gospel has no centurion story, no torn curtain, and no unusual events taking place at the time of Jesus’ death.
- None of the four gospels agreed on the inscription written on the cross above Jesus.
- Jesus’ co-crucified were robbers according to Mark and Matthew, criminals according to Luke, and ‘two others’ according to John. The Romans generally reserved crucifixion as the fate of those found guilty of sedition or insurrection. It seems unlikely that two common thieves would have been crucified alongside Jesus. It’s much more likely that their fate would have been a public flogging.
- Philo-Judaeus was a local historian who lived in or near Jerusalem during the time Jesus was on earth and Matthew’s dead rose from their graves and wandered around the city. In his writings about this period, Philo-Judaeus reported nothing of this, or nothing of Jesus himself for that matter. Given that Philo-Judaeus later became a Christian and developed the doctrine of the Logos or Word, one would have thought that if he had seen, or knew anyone who had seen, any of these miraculous events he would have been thrilled to include references to them in his later writings, since they would have supported his theology.
* Some versions of the bible have ‘a son’.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)