Most Christians and perhaps some non-Christians who believe in an historical Jesus would attribute some of these qualities to him: loving, generous, kind, considerate, above reproach, nice, friendly, etc. However, there are stories in the gospels in which he appears to have very less flattering attributes. Here are some examples:
This story appears only in John (2:1-11). Jesus, his mother and his disciples are attending a wedding celebration at Cana in Galilee. When the wine fails his mother says to him, "They have no wine." Jesus replies to her, "O Woman, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come." This incident occurs at the very beginning of Jesus' ministry, so he would be about thirty years of age at the time. In spite of his age, it's a wonder Mary didn't ground him for a month on the spot for such impudence and disrespect. Doesn't the old testament say we should honour our father and mother? Would anyone care to guess what fury would rain down on a child who responded to his mother's polite reminder that it's time for him or her to clean up their room with, "O woman, what have you to do with me. I'll clean it up when I'm good and ready." By the way, Jesus did help out the happy couple by performing a miracle and turning some water into wine, thus saving the day.
In Luke 8:19, Jesus has been going from town to town preaching to large crowds. In one of the towns, his mother and brothers come to see him, but they can't get up close to him because of the crowd. Someone tells him, "Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, desiring to see you." He replies, "My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it." A real family guy at heart. Hasn't he talked about the word of God to his own family? Haven't they heard the word from the horse's mouth and haven't they done it? It would be ludicrous if he brought the word of God to total strangers and not to his own family. Doesn't he care about their salvation?
At the last supper Jesus tells his disciples that one of them would betray him. Of that disciple, Jesus says, "The Son of man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born." (Matthew 26:24) Jesus preached that if someone struck you on one one side of your face, rather than retaliate, you should offer him or her the other cheek to strike. I guess Jesus didn't practise what he preached. Cross him and you will be crushed. That's not the other cheek.
Matthew 15:21-28 tells the story of a Canaanite woman who came up to Jesus when he and his disciples were in the district of Tyre and Sidon and said to him, "Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David, my daughter is severely possessed by a demon." Jesus ignores her and says not a word to her. She tries her luck with the disciples, but fares no better. The disciples grow weary of her pestering and come to Jesus and implore (in unison?) "Send her away, for she is crying after us." Jesus replies, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." The woman tries once more, "Lord, help me." He replies, "It is not fair to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs." Nice. A metaphor in which the Jews are children and the gentiles are dogs. She responds, "Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master's table." Her faith wins over Jesus and he grants her request. In Marks version of this story the woman is a Greek, a Syrophoenician by birth and Jesus says to her, "Let the children first be fed, for it is not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs." Luke's author took a pass on this story and so did John's.
In Luke 9:57-62 a man approaches Jesus and the disciples and Jesus says to him, "Follow me." The man replies, "Lord, let me first go and bury my father." Jesus then says to him, "Leave the dead to bury their own dead; but as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God." Another potential follower says to Jesus, "I will follow you, Lord, but let me first say farewell to those at my home." Jesus replies, "No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God." Geeze, this guy's all business. These two will be disqualified from following Jesus if they want to say goodbye to their family or attend their father's funeral? Wow! How considerate of Jesus. How about a little closure for the chap who had just lost his father? If the other guy just disappears won't his family be in agony for days, weeks, or months wondering what happened to him. Is he alive? Was he kidnapped? Is he lying in a ditch somewhere? Couldn't Jesus have said to these men, "Sure you can bury your father, and say goodbye to your family. We're headed for ....... You can catch up with us there."
In Mark and Luke there is a story about Jesus and a fig tree. On their way to Jerusalem, Jesus and his disciples see a fig tree. Jesus is hungry and walks over to it for some fruit. Unfortunately, it isn't the season for figs, so he finds none. He curses it with, "May no one ever eat fruit from you again." The next day they find the tree dead. In Luke he curses the tree with, "May no fruit ever come from you again.". So, let me get this straight. The Son of God doesn't know when figs are in season? He's lived in the Middle East for 33-odd years and he doesn't know this? And now because of his impatience and anger, a perfectly good fig tree is dead, and no one can enjoy its fruit any longer.
His anger is once more on display in the temple in Jerusalem. He starts driving out those who were buying and selling in the temple and overturns the tables of the money changers and the seats of those that were selling pigeons, saying, "Is it not written, 'My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations'? But you have made it a den of robbers."
At times Jesus refers to the Pharisees, scribes and possibly the Sadducces as broods of vipers, hypocrites, blind fools and perhaps a few other choice epithets I may have missed. Kind words indeed.
In chapter 10 of Matthew, Jesus is speaking to his disciples before he sends them out to preach "the kingdom of heaven is at hand", and they are to heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers and cast out demons." He then tells them that "if anyone will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town. Truly, I say to you, it shall be more tolerable on the day of judgement for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town. Jesus isn't even going to be the one preaching to these people. He's sending out his neophyte preachers and if they aren't believed, well, these people will be wishing they had been in Sodom or Gomorrah when the fire and brimstone hit rather than the fate which apparently will await them. What if some of the disciples aren't very convincing. Are these people just out of luck? That's pretty nasty.
Also, from the same chapter Jesus tells the disciples, "Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law, and a man's foes will be those of his own household. He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and he who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me." Jesus may not have meant for anyone to take what he says here at face value, but if he didn't, he should have expressed this differently so we could all understand what he meant. Otherwise this is just a rather nasty declaration of Jesus' intent. If one's message is at all important, and Jesus' is certainly thought to be so, he shouldn't be talking in riddles like this. People shouldn't have to figure this stuff out. It should be crystal clear.
In Luke (22:36) Jesus is again talking about swords. He tells the disciples that if they don't have a sword to sell their mantles and buy one. They say to him, "Look Lord, here are two swords." Jesus says, "It is enough." Really? What's the plan here? Has Jesus decided that if he's going down to cover the sins of mankind, he's going to take a few people with him?
So, it appears that Jesus was not the epitome of all the finest attributes one can have.
Sunday, 31 January 2016
Saturday, 12 December 2015
The Gospels - A Comparative Reading - Part 10 - The Transfiguration of Jesus
The story of the transfiguration of Jesus only appears in the synoptic gospels. It appears nowhere in the gospel of John. According to the gospel of Mark, Jesus leads Peter, James and John to a mountain top and he is transfigured before them. "...his garments became glistening, intensely white, as no fuller on earth could bleach them." Elijah and Moses appear to them and they speak to Jesus.
A cloud overshadows them and a voice comes from the cloud saying, "This is my beloved Son, listen to him." Suddenly they're alone with Jesus again. Jesus charges them to tell no one what they have seen until the Son of man has risen from the dead.
In the gospel of Matthew all the same characters appear. The transfiguration is described as "his face shone like the sun, and his garments became as white as light." In this version the voice from the cloud says, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him." and on hearing it the three disciples fall on their faces and are filled with awe. Again Jesus tells them to keep silent about what they have seen.
The gospel of Luke's version is slightly different again. This time they are going up the mountain to pray. As they do so "the appearance of his countenance was altered, and his raiment became dazzling white." Moses and Elijah appear and talk to Jesus, but this time we are told a bit about the content of their discussion. They speak to Jesus about his departure, which he is to accomplish at Jerusalem. Peter and the other disciples were asleep and hadn't seen anything that had happened so far until they awaken and see Jesus' glory and the two men with him. This time the voice from the cloud says, "This is my Son, my chosen, listen to him." Jesus doesn't charge the disciples to keep silent about what they have seen, but for some reason they do so anyway. One would have thought they would at least share their experience with their fellow disciples.
In Mark and Matthew's version of this story the disciples don't fall asleep so they are awake when Jesus, Moses and Elijah are talking yet no mention is made of the subject matter of their conversation. This would seem to be a very important part of the experience. Why aren't we told about what was said? In Luke's version they do fall asleep yet we seem to know what was discussed. How can this be known to Luke's author? The three disciples didn't hear it so couldn't have told anyone and Moses and Elijah return to wherever they came from. That leaves only Jesus and he told the disciples to tell no one, so I doubt he, himself, would have spoken about the incident and there is certainly no record of him telling anyone in any of the gospels.
How is it that Peter, at least, knows who the two men were who appeared with Jesus. He couldn't possibly have known what Moses or Elijah looked like. Jesus doesn't make any introductions, yet Peter says, " Master, it is well that we are here; let us make three booths, one for you and one for Moses and one for Elijah."
In the Lukan version God refers to Jesus as his chosen one. When did he choose him, at conception, at birth, at his baptism by John the Baptist? This sounds a lot like adoptionist theology and Luke's author has Jesus divine from his miraculous birth so why "my chosen"? According to Luke's author, God, or perhaps more accurately the Holy Spirit, created Jesus. He didn't choose him.
So, did the three disciples fall asleep on the mountain? Did they fall on their faces when they heard God's voice? Did they hear what Jesus, Moses and Elijah were talking about? And what did God say when he spoke to them? It depends which gospel you read.
A cloud overshadows them and a voice comes from the cloud saying, "This is my beloved Son, listen to him." Suddenly they're alone with Jesus again. Jesus charges them to tell no one what they have seen until the Son of man has risen from the dead.
In the gospel of Matthew all the same characters appear. The transfiguration is described as "his face shone like the sun, and his garments became as white as light." In this version the voice from the cloud says, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him." and on hearing it the three disciples fall on their faces and are filled with awe. Again Jesus tells them to keep silent about what they have seen.
The gospel of Luke's version is slightly different again. This time they are going up the mountain to pray. As they do so "the appearance of his countenance was altered, and his raiment became dazzling white." Moses and Elijah appear and talk to Jesus, but this time we are told a bit about the content of their discussion. They speak to Jesus about his departure, which he is to accomplish at Jerusalem. Peter and the other disciples were asleep and hadn't seen anything that had happened so far until they awaken and see Jesus' glory and the two men with him. This time the voice from the cloud says, "This is my Son, my chosen, listen to him." Jesus doesn't charge the disciples to keep silent about what they have seen, but for some reason they do so anyway. One would have thought they would at least share their experience with their fellow disciples.
In Mark and Matthew's version of this story the disciples don't fall asleep so they are awake when Jesus, Moses and Elijah are talking yet no mention is made of the subject matter of their conversation. This would seem to be a very important part of the experience. Why aren't we told about what was said? In Luke's version they do fall asleep yet we seem to know what was discussed. How can this be known to Luke's author? The three disciples didn't hear it so couldn't have told anyone and Moses and Elijah return to wherever they came from. That leaves only Jesus and he told the disciples to tell no one, so I doubt he, himself, would have spoken about the incident and there is certainly no record of him telling anyone in any of the gospels.
How is it that Peter, at least, knows who the two men were who appeared with Jesus. He couldn't possibly have known what Moses or Elijah looked like. Jesus doesn't make any introductions, yet Peter says, " Master, it is well that we are here; let us make three booths, one for you and one for Moses and one for Elijah."
In the Lukan version God refers to Jesus as his chosen one. When did he choose him, at conception, at birth, at his baptism by John the Baptist? This sounds a lot like adoptionist theology and Luke's author has Jesus divine from his miraculous birth so why "my chosen"? According to Luke's author, God, or perhaps more accurately the Holy Spirit, created Jesus. He didn't choose him.
So, did the three disciples fall asleep on the mountain? Did they fall on their faces when they heard God's voice? Did they hear what Jesus, Moses and Elijah were talking about? And what did God say when he spoke to them? It depends which gospel you read.
Wednesday, 11 November 2015
Paul on the road to Damascus
One of the best known biblical stories is Paul's conversion from Judaism to Christianity while he was travelling on the road to Damascus. He was on his way there with letters from the high priest written to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way (Christians) he could bind them and bring them, both men and women, to Jerusalem. As he approached the city a light from heaven flashed about him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?" Paul asked, "Who are you, Lord?" The voice replied, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting; but rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do." The men who were with him heard the voice, but saw no one. Paul was blind for three days. The men led him to Damascus.
This is the version of the story presented by the author of The Acts of the Apostles in chapter 9. In chapter 22 Paul himself, relates his own version of this event. He has been arrested by the Romans and Paul asked them if he might address the crowd of his accusers. They gave him permission to speak to them and he told them what he had been doing that day and how he was converted. But the story is slightly different. In the chapter 9 version it doesn't say whether the men saw the light or not, but it definitely says they heard the voice. In chapter 22 Paul said he fell to the ground. In his own words, "Now those who were with me saw the light but did [NOT] hear the voice of the one who was speaking to me."
Paul revisited his story one more time in chapter 26 before King Agrippa and Paul's accusers. Again the story changes a bit. This time both Paul and all his companions fall to the ground when they see the light. Paul said, "I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew language." He doesn't say whether his companions heard the voice or not. Paul makes no mention of being blinded by the light, a significant part of the story.
So, in the chapter 9 and 22 versions, Paul falls to the ground. In the 26th chapter one, both he and his companions fall. In chapter 9 the companions hear the voice. In 22 they don't, and in 26 we don't really know. Paul simply says he heard the voice.
Paul and his companions are all human beings, they all see the light according to chapter 22, but only Paul is blinded by it. Why is this?
What is really interesting is that parts of Acts are written in the first person implying that the author was there at the time the events he's describing were taking place. For example, the first few words of chapter 28 say, "After we had escaped, we learned that the island was called Malta." implying that Acts' author was on board the ship that was trying to take Paul to Rome. However, the conversion story being told in chapter 9 is being related in the third person implying Acts' author was not present at that time. Also told in the third person are the two versions of his conversion that Paul relates to his accusers, implying again that the author wasn't there at those times either when Paul was telling his story.
Therefore, the author's information for these versions of the stories is no better than secondhand and possibly third or forthhand or worse. BUT, he wrote all three versions of these stories himself so how on earth can they not be in perfect sync? Who heard the voice, Paul or everyone present? Who fell to the ground, only Paul or all present? Was Paul blinded by the light or not? How many words did Jesus speak to Paul, 30 (chapter 9), 35 (chapter 22) or 118 (chapter 26)? Most scholars believe that both the gospel of Luke and Acts were written by the same author. Surely this must raise some doubts about the reliability and integrity of his work.
Interesting note:
The Greek word "akouo" appears 374 times in the New Testament. In all but one of these instances it is translated as "heard". The only time it is not translated as "heard" is in The Book of Acts, chapter 22, verse 9 in which it is translated as "understood", and then only in some versions like The New International Version and the Living Bible. The King James Version, The revised Standard Version and most others translated it here as "heard" like they do everywhere else in the New Testament. Why do this? I expect it is to remove a contradiction from their texts. Now their chapter 9 says Paul's companions heard the voice and their chapter 22 implies they heard the voice but didn't understand what it was saying. Bingo! No contradiction. This is dishonest. The bible has many contradictions in it. The Skeptics Annotated Bible website contains a list of 535 of them. They're there. Let's just live with it. It isn't justifiable to get rid of one of them by misleadingly translating a word.
This is the version of the story presented by the author of The Acts of the Apostles in chapter 9. In chapter 22 Paul himself, relates his own version of this event. He has been arrested by the Romans and Paul asked them if he might address the crowd of his accusers. They gave him permission to speak to them and he told them what he had been doing that day and how he was converted. But the story is slightly different. In the chapter 9 version it doesn't say whether the men saw the light or not, but it definitely says they heard the voice. In chapter 22 Paul said he fell to the ground. In his own words, "Now those who were with me saw the light but did [NOT] hear the voice of the one who was speaking to me."
Paul revisited his story one more time in chapter 26 before King Agrippa and Paul's accusers. Again the story changes a bit. This time both Paul and all his companions fall to the ground when they see the light. Paul said, "I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew language." He doesn't say whether his companions heard the voice or not. Paul makes no mention of being blinded by the light, a significant part of the story.
So, in the chapter 9 and 22 versions, Paul falls to the ground. In the 26th chapter one, both he and his companions fall. In chapter 9 the companions hear the voice. In 22 they don't, and in 26 we don't really know. Paul simply says he heard the voice.
Paul and his companions are all human beings, they all see the light according to chapter 22, but only Paul is blinded by it. Why is this?
What is really interesting is that parts of Acts are written in the first person implying that the author was there at the time the events he's describing were taking place. For example, the first few words of chapter 28 say, "After we had escaped, we learned that the island was called Malta." implying that Acts' author was on board the ship that was trying to take Paul to Rome. However, the conversion story being told in chapter 9 is being related in the third person implying Acts' author was not present at that time. Also told in the third person are the two versions of his conversion that Paul relates to his accusers, implying again that the author wasn't there at those times either when Paul was telling his story.
Therefore, the author's information for these versions of the stories is no better than secondhand and possibly third or forthhand or worse. BUT, he wrote all three versions of these stories himself so how on earth can they not be in perfect sync? Who heard the voice, Paul or everyone present? Who fell to the ground, only Paul or all present? Was Paul blinded by the light or not? How many words did Jesus speak to Paul, 30 (chapter 9), 35 (chapter 22) or 118 (chapter 26)? Most scholars believe that both the gospel of Luke and Acts were written by the same author. Surely this must raise some doubts about the reliability and integrity of his work.
Interesting note:
The Greek word "akouo" appears 374 times in the New Testament. In all but one of these instances it is translated as "heard". The only time it is not translated as "heard" is in The Book of Acts, chapter 22, verse 9 in which it is translated as "understood", and then only in some versions like The New International Version and the Living Bible. The King James Version, The revised Standard Version and most others translated it here as "heard" like they do everywhere else in the New Testament. Why do this? I expect it is to remove a contradiction from their texts. Now their chapter 9 says Paul's companions heard the voice and their chapter 22 implies they heard the voice but didn't understand what it was saying. Bingo! No contradiction. This is dishonest. The bible has many contradictions in it. The Skeptics Annotated Bible website contains a list of 535 of them. They're there. Let's just live with it. It isn't justifiable to get rid of one of them by misleadingly translating a word.
Wednesday, 18 February 2015
Lot, Abraham's Goodie-two-shoes Nephew
According to the bible's Genesis, Lot is Abraham's nephew, his brother Haran's son. When Lot and Abraham come out of Egypt and head east, they decide they should split up with their respective families. Lot chooses his land first. He picks the Jordan valley in which the city of Sodom is located. Abraham (then called Abram) chooses Canaan.
Lot takes up residence in Sodom. Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grave God decides he will go down and check it out for himself, which would seem unnecessary since he is deemed to be omniscient. Abraham converses with God when he learns of God's plan to destroy Sodom. He asks God if he would not destroy the city if he found 50 righteous people living there. God agrees. Then Abraham continues to bargain with God. How about 45 righteous? Again, God says he wouldn't destroy the city because of the 45. Abraham continues, what about 40? 30? 20? 10? Each time God tells Abraham he would not destroy Sodom if he found that number of righteous people in the city. Who has the moral high ground here, anyway?
Two angels come to Sodom in the evening. Lot is at the gates of the city and invites the two angels to spend the night at his house, and continue on their way the next day. They accept his invitation, and Lot puts on a feast for them. Before they retire for the night the men of the city, both young and old come to Lot's house and surround it, all the people (does this mean all the girls and women were there too?) to the last man, surround it. The men call out to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, so that we may know them." Of course, "know" here is a biblical euphemism for sodomize. Lot goes outside to speak to the men and says, "I beg you my brothers, do not act so wickedly. Behold I have two daughters who have not known man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them what you please; only do nothing to these men for they have come under the shelter of my roof." WHAT? He's prepared to send his two daughters out to this mob so they can be raped and sodomized by the the men of the town. What kind of father is he? Aren't his own daughters under the shelter of his roof too? Most fathers would sacrifice themselves to spare their children. Not Lot. He's not putting his own ass out there on the line. He'd prefer that his daughters did so and didn't even bother to consult with them before offering them up. Fortunately for them, the men of the town weren't interested in women. They only wanted the two angels. As we shall see, these men (angels) had some magical powers and were quite capable of taking care of themselves. The townsmen press hard against Lot intending to break down the door. The angels manage to pull Lot back into the house and close the door. They then strike the men who were at the door with blindness so they can't find their way to the door. (See, I said they had magical powers!)
The angels ask Lot if there is anyone else in the city that he wants to save. Lot considers the two men who are to marry his daughters. It appears he cared more about his future sons-in-law than he did about his own daughters. Somehow, Lot gets past the mob to warn them, but can't convince them he isn't joking. How hard could he have tried? I guess we are to presume that they perished in the conflagration, although we aren't told that they were. The angels send Lot, his wife and two daughters to the city of Zoar, the city of Lot's choosing. They warn Lot and his family to flee the city and not to look back until they clear the valley. Unfortunately, Lot's wife looks back on the destruction and is instantly turned into a pillar of salt. Really? The death penalty for looking back on the destruction? It hardly seems fair not to have advised the family what the actual punishment was for looking back, so they could determine the seriousness of this infraction. The Lord rains fire and brimstone down on Sodom and Gomorrah. The cities and all its inhabitants are destroyed; men, women, children and animals and all vegetation.
Lot is afraid to dwell in Zoar (the bible gives no reason) so he and his two daughters go up into the hills and live in a cave. One day the elder daughter says to the younger, "Our father is old, and their is not a man on earth * to come into us after the manner of all the earth. Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve offspring through our father." So for the next two evenings they get their father drunk and each one takes a turn lying with him. Lot is so drunk he is unaware that his two daughters have sexual intercourse with him. As a result off their intrigue both daughters become pregnant. The elder has a son named Moab, who becomes the father of the Moabites. The younger also has a son, and calls him Benammi, who becomes the father of the Ammonites.
*Really? The whole earth? They had just left Zoar. Was it a city devoid of young men?
This part of the story seems particularly ridiculous. First of all, I'm sure it's not every young woman's dream to have sex with their elderly father, drunk or sober. Secondly, he was old and so drunk he has no idea they were even in his bed. What are the odds he could perform sexually for them? Speaking of odds, what are the chances of both women getting pregnant on their first efforts? Lastly, if they wanted to meet some men who might be interested in them or in just getting them pregnant they needed only to leave their cave and descend from the hills into the city of Zoar. I'm sure they could have found some willing candidates.
What kind of family is this anyway? Could they be any more dysfunctional? These were the righteous people who were worth saving? Lot was purported to be the good guy, yet he was prepared to throw his own children to the wolves. Lot's daughters got their father inebriated and sexually assaulted him in order to become pregnant. His wife disobeyed God and was turned into salt, although the crime and punishment seem a bit ridiculous.
This story has all the look of a fabricated one that was not all that well thought out. The only point of the story seems to be to inform us that God frowns very heavily on homosexual activity and is prepared, at least in this instance to eradicate it by destroying entire cities, including any women, children and animals caught behind their walls, at least some of whom must have been innocent; also that disobeying God can have some serious consequences.
So, what can we conclude? How about Lot wasn't the righteous goodie-two-shoes we thought he was and neither were his daughters, so God is not a very good judge of character or righteousness either for that matter? Maybe Lot wasn't any more righteous than his fellow townsfolk and deserved to perish with them. But God doesn't come off as squeaky clean either. Innocent animals, children, infants were no doubt burned to death in the conflagration.
Lot takes up residence in Sodom. Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grave God decides he will go down and check it out for himself, which would seem unnecessary since he is deemed to be omniscient. Abraham converses with God when he learns of God's plan to destroy Sodom. He asks God if he would not destroy the city if he found 50 righteous people living there. God agrees. Then Abraham continues to bargain with God. How about 45 righteous? Again, God says he wouldn't destroy the city because of the 45. Abraham continues, what about 40? 30? 20? 10? Each time God tells Abraham he would not destroy Sodom if he found that number of righteous people in the city. Who has the moral high ground here, anyway?
Two angels come to Sodom in the evening. Lot is at the gates of the city and invites the two angels to spend the night at his house, and continue on their way the next day. They accept his invitation, and Lot puts on a feast for them. Before they retire for the night the men of the city, both young and old come to Lot's house and surround it, all the people (does this mean all the girls and women were there too?) to the last man, surround it. The men call out to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, so that we may know them." Of course, "know" here is a biblical euphemism for sodomize. Lot goes outside to speak to the men and says, "I beg you my brothers, do not act so wickedly. Behold I have two daughters who have not known man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them what you please; only do nothing to these men for they have come under the shelter of my roof." WHAT? He's prepared to send his two daughters out to this mob so they can be raped and sodomized by the the men of the town. What kind of father is he? Aren't his own daughters under the shelter of his roof too? Most fathers would sacrifice themselves to spare their children. Not Lot. He's not putting his own ass out there on the line. He'd prefer that his daughters did so and didn't even bother to consult with them before offering them up. Fortunately for them, the men of the town weren't interested in women. They only wanted the two angels. As we shall see, these men (angels) had some magical powers and were quite capable of taking care of themselves. The townsmen press hard against Lot intending to break down the door. The angels manage to pull Lot back into the house and close the door. They then strike the men who were at the door with blindness so they can't find their way to the door. (See, I said they had magical powers!)
The angels ask Lot if there is anyone else in the city that he wants to save. Lot considers the two men who are to marry his daughters. It appears he cared more about his future sons-in-law than he did about his own daughters. Somehow, Lot gets past the mob to warn them, but can't convince them he isn't joking. How hard could he have tried? I guess we are to presume that they perished in the conflagration, although we aren't told that they were. The angels send Lot, his wife and two daughters to the city of Zoar, the city of Lot's choosing. They warn Lot and his family to flee the city and not to look back until they clear the valley. Unfortunately, Lot's wife looks back on the destruction and is instantly turned into a pillar of salt. Really? The death penalty for looking back on the destruction? It hardly seems fair not to have advised the family what the actual punishment was for looking back, so they could determine the seriousness of this infraction. The Lord rains fire and brimstone down on Sodom and Gomorrah. The cities and all its inhabitants are destroyed; men, women, children and animals and all vegetation.
Lot is afraid to dwell in Zoar (the bible gives no reason) so he and his two daughters go up into the hills and live in a cave. One day the elder daughter says to the younger, "Our father is old, and their is not a man on earth * to come into us after the manner of all the earth. Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve offspring through our father." So for the next two evenings they get their father drunk and each one takes a turn lying with him. Lot is so drunk he is unaware that his two daughters have sexual intercourse with him. As a result off their intrigue both daughters become pregnant. The elder has a son named Moab, who becomes the father of the Moabites. The younger also has a son, and calls him Benammi, who becomes the father of the Ammonites.
*Really? The whole earth? They had just left Zoar. Was it a city devoid of young men?
This part of the story seems particularly ridiculous. First of all, I'm sure it's not every young woman's dream to have sex with their elderly father, drunk or sober. Secondly, he was old and so drunk he has no idea they were even in his bed. What are the odds he could perform sexually for them? Speaking of odds, what are the chances of both women getting pregnant on their first efforts? Lastly, if they wanted to meet some men who might be interested in them or in just getting them pregnant they needed only to leave their cave and descend from the hills into the city of Zoar. I'm sure they could have found some willing candidates.
What kind of family is this anyway? Could they be any more dysfunctional? These were the righteous people who were worth saving? Lot was purported to be the good guy, yet he was prepared to throw his own children to the wolves. Lot's daughters got their father inebriated and sexually assaulted him in order to become pregnant. His wife disobeyed God and was turned into salt, although the crime and punishment seem a bit ridiculous.
This story has all the look of a fabricated one that was not all that well thought out. The only point of the story seems to be to inform us that God frowns very heavily on homosexual activity and is prepared, at least in this instance to eradicate it by destroying entire cities, including any women, children and animals caught behind their walls, at least some of whom must have been innocent; also that disobeying God can have some serious consequences.
So, what can we conclude? How about Lot wasn't the righteous goodie-two-shoes we thought he was and neither were his daughters, so God is not a very good judge of character or righteousness either for that matter? Maybe Lot wasn't any more righteous than his fellow townsfolk and deserved to perish with them. But God doesn't come off as squeaky clean either. Innocent animals, children, infants were no doubt burned to death in the conflagration.
Wednesday, 24 December 2014
The Gospels - A Comparative Reading - Part 9 - The Resurrection
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.
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.
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)