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.
Monday 24 February 2014
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)