Sometimes life happens. A sort of “perfect storm” of energy-sapping events struck me in June and the idea of “free time” has been completely foreign to me for the last month or so. I do intend, however, to redouble my efforts, so I hope you’re ready for the 52 Blogs lighting round as I have no intention of turning this into a year-and-a-half-long venture. I apologize to everyone who has been on pins and needles awaiting my next post (mom?). In all seriousness, though, I could never have anticipated that writing this blog would be as demanding as it has turned out to be. Leaving it to “free time” is a disservice to my readership and I am truly sorry that my level of commitment has not been what it should be. With that, I’m ready to jump to Gospel #3. I hope you’re equally ready to question every nuance in the Comments section. I would be disappointed otherwise.
As a student of history, I have a certain partiality to Luke. His writing style and level of detail makes his gospel (as well as the book of Acts) a rarity. Unlike Mark and Matthew, Luke gives us some insight on his reasons for documenting the life of Christ:
Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
From the introduction, it would seem that Luke has been commissioned to investigate the stories found in Mark and elsewhere and to piece together his own account of Jesus’ life and death.
In the Book of Acts, Luke mentions specifically being a companion of Paul and James and interacts with the “elders” on more than one occasion. He also mentions in his prologue that he interviewed those who “from the first were eyewitnesses.” So, it is reasonable to believe that Luke’s works would accord with the stories of his interviewees, who were themselves followers of Christ. Luke should be viewed, I think, as a biographer. He is the first to cite his sources (though indirectly) and only adds to the claims of Mark and Matthew.
DATE
As with the other gospels, there is no original manuscript of the gospel of Luke; still, the gospel can be dated to within the first century and the reported accounts must have taken place during the lifetimes of eyewitnesses. Because Luke authored both his gospel and Acts, it is easier to assign a date to Luke. Luke speaks in the first person and provides great detail throughout both books. In Acts 21, we need only note that he was accompanied by both Paul and James; thus, the events he witnessed and the eyewitnesses he knew must have been encountered prior to the martyrdom of Paul or James (c. 62 CE).
When we had come to Jerusalem, the brothers received us gladly. On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present.
As support of the notion that Luke authored the accounts before 62 CE, it should be noted that Luke ends not with Paul’s martyrdom, but with his imprisonment. He certainly thought it noteworthy to detail many events in Paul’s life, but neglected to mention his death. A reasonable conclusion would be that Luke finished his work before Paul’s demise. Regardless of when the book was penned, however, Luke was certainly in the company of one eyewitness (James) and likely several others (as we know that Paul met with Peter, John, and others while Luke kept his company and Luke references the “elders”). So, he interacted directly with Jesus’ disciples only twenty-something years after Jesus’ death. As far as sources from antiquity go, Luke is easily among the most credentialed.
ADHERENCE
It should not be surprising that Matthew, Mark, and Luke report similar stories and truths about Jesus. In the early church, the disciples would benefit greatly by preaching a congruent message. What this tells us about the synoptic gospels is that each almost certainly had access to the earliest writings of the church and that each was able to consult with the church founders (i.e. the disciples). It tells us, too, that it was important to the church leaders that the accounts remain steadfast. Each of the synoptic gospels emphasizes different elements of Jesus’ teachings, but each of the three corroborates the key elements of Jesus’ life (though, again, the focus of Mark is limited in comparison):
Virgin Birth
Miracles
Adherence to Scripture
Authority as Son of God
Great Commission
Prophecies
Crucifixion
Resurrection
Where Mark gave the least detail (likely a result of being the earliest work), Luke is very explicit in his descriptions and delves more into Jesus’ messages of sacrifice and inclusion. He also makes note of times, places, and events in such a way that his descriptions are largely verifiable through archeological and historical means. The meticulous manner in which Luke documents so many details lends even further credence to his work.
DIFFICULTIES
If we look upon the gospel authors as men making an earnest attempt to accurately record history, there is little reason to doubt the validity of each author’s story. What we see with the first three gospels is that each gives an account for a specific audience. Details recorded by one may be left out by another, but nowhere in the gospels do we find contradictions regarding the “key elements” noted above. Debates centering around whether Jesus stood or sat during the Sermon on the Mount only serve to explicate the harmonious nature of the gospels (i.e. the arguments focus on the minutiae).
For this blog, I’m making no claim that the gospel works are divinely inspired. It’s simply too easy to lose oneself in an argument that really does not matter in the grand scheme. If the authors are telling the truth, but are found to have erred when reporting on the color of Jesus’ tunic, the accounts do not suffer. That being said, there must certainly be a threshold for errors associated with “minor details” that should cause pause. Since I’m uncertain as to what this threshold is, I plan to continue to address difficulties presented in the New Testament. I hope that in the end, though, you don’t attempt to “throw the baby out with the bath water” (i.e. toss aside the entirety of the Bible because you’re uncertain whether the soldiers who accompanied Saul on the road to Damascus could “hear” God). On with the fun stuff…
GENEALOGY
Matthew and Luke give different genealogies in reference to Jesus.
Luke’s first reference in the lineage of Jesus tells us that Joseph was the son of Heli. Some have referenced the Talmud to illustrate that the text provides evidence that Mary is indeed the daughter of Heli, and thus Luke was speaking about Heli’s son-in-law Joseph to begin his own version of Jesus’ lineage. From this, it is reasonable to conclude that Luke is referencing the lineage of Mary whereas Matthew references the lineage of Joseph. It seems such a trivial matter for Luke to be able to confirm the identity of Jesus’ grandfather that I doubt sincerely that he blundered right out of the gate. The explanation of Luke tracing Jesus’ genealogy through Mary seems to be the most plausible.
CENSUS
Luke claims that Jesus was born during the census of Quirinius. There is a historical record of Quirinius reign beginning around 6CE, so Luke must have been off by a decade or more.
Luke maintains a splendid record of historical rulers. He tracks the dates of antiquity by referencing those in power, since there was no universal western calendar. Because of this, it is relatively easy to verify/dispute Luke’s claims using extra-Biblical texts. One such classic example of a supposed error can be found in Luke 3:
In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene, during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John the son of Zechariah in the wilderness.
Skeptics claimed that Luke was horribly mistaken in his dating as Lysanias was known to have been executed by order of Marc Antony 50-60 years before. A later archeological finding, however, vindicated Luke when an inscription was discovered on a temple from the time of Tiberius that explicitly named Lysanias in exactly the timeframe described by Luke. Luke’s descriptions of people, places, and titles have been verified with remarkable accuracy.
As a matter of reference in regards to the census, there existed two bronze plaques outside of the mausoleum of Augustus Caesar that list the “Acts of Augustus” – the emperor’s own list of his 35 greatest achievements. Among these, Caesar lauds his three empire-wide censuses, one of which was begun in 8 B.C. As you can imagine, such censuses took some time to complete (and it is likely that Bethlehem was not priority one), so we find that Jesus’ date of birth would almost certainly fit into the timeframe of the census. So, history supports the notion that Jesus was born whilst a census was being conducted.
Assuming that Luke was simply mistaken with regards to the census when his dates and accounts are otherwise meticulous and accurate is likely incorrect. There are three very valid explanations for this oft-referenced “discrepancy”:
1. Quirinius was a respected military leader during the time of the census. He headed a campaign in the region against the Hemonadensians while Syria was being ruled by an incompetent governor (Varus). Caesar entrusted the task of a census to Quirinius rather than to Varus, thus superseding Varus’ authority.
2. There exists an inscription that was discovered in Trivoli in 1764 which says that the governor of Syria had twice been the governor. The inscription does not name the governor, but some scholars have proposed that Quirinius may well have been appointed as a secondary governor during his campaign against the Hemonadensians.
3. The simplest explanation is simply that the Greek word “prote” can be translated in one of two ways, yielding the alternative translation: “This census was before Quirinius was governor of Syria.”
Oh, and – as noted above – Luke knew Jesus’ brother. There is an ever-so-slight possibility that James could have corrected him were he truly off by over a decade. It seems that the greater likelihood is that Luke was right, but limited sources have left him as-of-yet uncorroborated.
BIRTH STORIES
Luke leaves out the details regarding the family’s flight to Egypt and the events prompting the exodus.
I read a few possible explanations for this, but the only thing that truly matters is this: A lack of detail is simply not a contradiction. The exodus to Egypt strikes a parallel to the Old Testament story that chronicles the enslavement of the Israelites. Matthew, writing to a Jewish audience, went out of his way to draw parallels between the Old Testament and the New. The parallel here should not be surprising. Luke may have simply omitted the story. The chronology, however, remains intact.
JESUS’ LAST MOMENTS ON THE CROSS
Matthew says that “Jesus cried out.” Luke cites Jesus as having said, “Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit.” John tells us that Jesus said simply, “It is finished.”
Each of the gospel authors gives writes a different description of what is often called “Jesus’ last words.” Each of these descriptions, however, accord well with one another, even if they are not verbatim. During this period of history, quotations simply did not exist. Jesus’ words may well serve the literary function of bringing the crucifixion story to a close or they may simply be alternative ways of bringing the same message: Jesus spoke His last. In either case, there is no contradictory message. Jesus spoke/cried a message of finality then He died.
THE TOMB
Matthew
Mary Magdalene and “the other Mary” visit the tomb.
There is an earthquake that causes the guards great fear.
One angel appears atop the stone and instructs the women to tell the disciples of the resurrection.
Jesus appears to the women after they have left the tomb and tells them that He will visit the disciples in Galilee.
Jesus visits the disciples in Galilee.
Mark
Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome visit the tomb.
The stone “had been rolled away.”
One angel (who they see as they enter the tomb) instructs the women to tell the disciples of the resurrection.
Luke
“The women” visited the tomb.
They found the stone rolled away.
Two angels tell them of Jesus’ resurrection.
Mary Magdalene, Mary mother of James, Joanna, and “others” tell the disciples of the resurrection.
Peter verifies that Jesus is not there.
Jesus visits two men then vanishes after they recognize Him.
Jesus visits the disciples (Luke does not name the location).
Details following the resurrection vary in descriptiveness.
Hopefully, since none of the stories mention the number of women who visited the tomb, the names of the women will not be too terribly appalling to anyone. Each refers to the Mary’s. Luke makes it clear that several others were with the twosome and Mark and Luke each refers to one additional participant by name. A likely explanation is that each chose to name the women with whom they were familiar.
Matthew specifically mentions the guards, whereas the others do not. The others may have simply written under the assumption that their audience would know that the guards were present or simply would not care about a detail that is certainly rendered minor in comparison to the resurrection. In either case, such a detail does not a contradiction make.
Where the stories seem to diverge is in the descriptions of the angel/angels. Part of what I enjoy when reading the gospels is the fact that each has access to very similar sources, but each reports the stories with different details. For example, though Luke almost certainly had access to Mark and reiterated Mark’s descriptions throughout, he reports as fact that two angels were present at the tomb whereas Mark reports only one. Why? The most plausible explanation is that Luke heard and believed reports that two angels were present. Hence, we can conclude that he was earnest in his attempts to relay the story of Jesus. It would be much easier to simply copy Mark’s account.
Is one account wrong? Adherents to the idea of a divinely-inspired scripture would likely point out that Matthew and Mark wrote of one angel who spoke, but did not say that only one was present. Others have hypothesized that the visitors to the tomb may have come at different times. For our purposes, it’s easier to acknowledge the possibility of discrepancies in the texts, since such discrepancies simply would not detract from the story. Certainly the presence of one or two angels is a minor detail in comparison to the major detail of the resurrection.
In the end, the possible discrepancies are so minor and so few that the three synoptic gospels yield a very clear picture of Jesus. Luke is explicit that his sources are second only to Christ Himself and Matthew and Mark corroborate fully Luke’s description of Jesus. The variances in style and details are such that collusion is unlikely. Yes, Matthew and Luke incorporate a large bit of Mark’s gospel into their own works, but each adds a great deal to his own gospel that cannot be attributed to Mark. We’re left with three different sources that tell the same story.
FINAL THOUGHT
I want to reiterate the point that the gospel authors had absolutely nothing to gain by concocting a story of the Christ. Further, the gospels were written years after the death of Christ. The church had already begun. The leaders were already established. From the preservation and spread of the gospels themselves, we can surmise that the early church supported the teachings documented by the synoptic gospel authors. This support should not be taken lightly. If indeed there were multitudinous eyewitnesses as the New Testament describes (and the population of the early church seems to corroborate), written accounts contrary to the actual teachings of the disciples would almost certainly die out as quickly as they were composed. The works that were circulated and mass-produced into the second and third centuries were evidently widely considered to be truthful accounts of Christ. One can still debate whether the ignorant hoards were corrupted by the “false teachings” of the disciples, but I think it is fair to say that the synoptic gospels paint a very clear picture of what the early Christians truly believed.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Monday, June 8, 2009
Mark (Week 19)
Dates
Mark is almost unanimously considered to be the earliest recorded gospel. There are some dissenting theories that place Matthew first; however, it is widely accepted that Mark pre-dates Matthew, Luke, and John. Matthew and Luke, in particular, incorporate much of Mark’s material into their own writings (though each significantly expounds upon Mark’s work), and, as I’ll discuss below, the writing style of Mark is consistent with a transitional piece of literature that seems to rely heavily on oral tradition as a supplement. The vast majority of scholars date Mark to within 30 years post-crucifixion.
Authorship
Again, with Mark, there is a heavy reliance on the tradition of the early church when it comes to authorship. While there is a tendency for some to dismiss Mark based on a lack of “concrete” evidence for authorship, it is important to note that the church in this case is actually quite a reliable and unbiased resource (remember: we’re talking authorship here). Later works speak of Mark as having been an associate of Peter; in fact, references to Mark himself are few and his prominence stems almost solely from his associations. “Major” apostles (e.g. Peter, Paul, and Barnabus), on the other hand, are well-known for their acts. The only recorded “acts” of Mark, on the other hand, are his greetings. (According to church tradition, Mark is the disciple known as John Mark in the Bible – Acts 12:12, 12:25, 15:37-40, Col 4:10, 2 Tim 4:11, 1 Pet 5:13).
Attributing authorship to Mark is historically tantamount to calling it an “anonymous” gospel; it is his sole act of historical importance. There is simply no reason for the early church to invent an author when there were 11+ ready-made authors to whom the gospel could have been ascribed.
Whether you subscribe to the primacy of Mark or Matthew, there is certainly a strong relationship between the two gospels and Luke. If we assume (and most do) that Mark came first, the use of Mark’s text in Matthew and Luke gives further credence to Mark as a legitimate source. Paul, too, cross-references the gospels. Such an interconnectedness and unity in message makes it difficult to simply dismiss any single gospel without dismissing the New Testament as a whole.
Because there is an interrelatedness easily seen when reading the gospels (especially Matthew, Mark, and Luke), I will not focus as heavily here in describing Mark’s beliefs about Jesus. In short, we find that Mark does not refute the core premises as Matthew:
Virgin Birth
Miracles
Adherence to Scripture
Authority as Son of God
Great Commission
Prophecies
Crucifixion
Resurrection
That being said, there are items on the above list that Mark either omits or downplays. This week, I want to focus on specific notable differences between Matthew and Mark as well as any difficulties associated with Mark, including Mark’s omissions and his seemingly different priorities. This is the approach I will continue to take over the next two weeks.
Omissions
The Book of Mark contains no birth stories and no record of the appearances following the resurrection.
Mark seems to have an utter disregard for Jesus’ place in history. He makes vague geographical and chronological references, whereas Matthew and Luke are much more astute in their attempts to document these details.
He does not document any of Jesus’ long discourses, which can be found in each of the other gospels.
He rarely speaks of Jesus as the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies.
Reasoning
I think the reason for Mark’s omissions and/or lack of detail is two-fold:
1. Mark is widely considered to be the earliest gospel and thus exists in a time when oral transmission of Jesus’ story was still very strong.
2. Mark was addressed to a specific audience.
Oral Tradition
Papias (as quoted by Eusebius) speaks of Mark’s association with Peter. What is often missed, however, is that Papias is not attempting to credit Mark via his associations; rather, he indicts the gospels, considering them to be secondary to oral tradition. Oral tradition, quite simply, was the way of the time. Some, like Papias, felt that written accounts did not provide enough flavor, or did not appropriately encompass the teachings of Jesus. Learning Jesus’ message via oral tradition, on the other hand, required that lessons apply to individual lives and situations. So, there was a sense of practicality lost in written accounts. The very fact that people of the time would debate whether to write things down is a clear indication of just how rich the oral tradition really was.
If we assume that Mark is indeed the earliest of the gospels (as is generally accepted), it’s logical to think of Mark as a transition from the oral tradition to the written word. The oral tradition was obviously serving its function as indicated by the church’s rapid early growth, so it makes sense then that as the number of first-hand sources began to dwindle, the value of written accounts would become more apparent. It is likely that many of Mark’s audience knew of Jesus. Mark was not necessarily attempting to teach the full story of Christ in his writings; rather, he was providing a written supplement to ensure that the core pieces of the story were not lost. Using such logic, it is reasonable to assume that later gospel writings should become more detailed. Matthew, Luke, and John, having written later, would have a better understanding of Mark’s limitations and would have a clearer picture of the ways in which Jesus’ teachings could be misunderstood; as such, they would have more incentive for certifying the details of Christ’s life and teachings.
The Audience
Whereas Matthew was most certainly written for the benefit of the Jews, Mark is written for the Romans. Matthew would be remiss had he not attended to details and Jewish traditions, but Mark’s audience would not be familiar with these elements. In Mark’s position, there is almost an all-or-nothing approach that must be taken: either you compile a synopsis of the Old Testament to accompany your work, or you simply teach about the life and times of Jesus.
The virgin birth, for instance, is of huge importance to the Jews (as it pertains to OT prophecy), but means little to the Gentiles. On the other hand, miracles, general life principles, and the story of the passion are paramount to understanding who Christ was, regardless of your background. I think this is something that can still be seen today. I’ve attended church regularly for years, and it is extremely rare to hear a sermon series on Jesus that ventures beyond his New Testament teachings.
Difficulties (in order of complexity, not chronologically)
Mark 16:8 - And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had seized them, and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.
As opposed to Matthew:
So they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples.
There are a number of ways to reconcile these verses. It should be noted first that Matthew speaks of their intention, while Mark speaks of their action. Second, while the women ran in fear, it may be that Mark was attempting to convey their intention to avoid speaking on the way to the disciples. Third, perhaps they “told” without ever “speaking.” Certainly, there is nothing here to lead to the conclusion that the two are contradictory.
Mark 16:9-20
These eleven verses are omitted from some Bibles, as they are not present in the earliest manuscripts of Mark. If you own a newer Bible and it contains these verses, it likely mentions the omission somewhere in the text or the notes. I will not use these verses as support.
Mark 6:5 – Apparent Lack of Power
And he could do no mighty work there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and healed them.
Taken out of context, it is very easy to view this verse and say, “Aha! Right here in the Bible, you can see that Jesus is limited.” It is important to note the surrounding verses, however, to establish the proper context for this verse. The story is set in Jesus’ home town:
“Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him. And Jesus said to them, "A prophet is not without honor, except in his hometown and among his relatives and in his own household." And he could do no mighty work there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and healed them. And he marveled because of their unbelief.
Mark tells us that Jesus could indeed heal the sick, and did. So, making the assumption that Jesus quite literally could not perform certain miracles doesn’t seem valid under the circumstances. He was certainly able to heal those who had faith in Him. I think it important to read this verse as an indication of Jesus’ moral objection to performing spectacular miracles. A modern example would be something like:
The governor was known for his stance against the death penalty and had pardoned all walk of criminal during his term; still, he could not pardon the vicious serial killer whose hands and feet were being bound to the table.
I think it is a much greater stretch (especially given the plethora of miracles Mark describes elsewhere) to assume that Jesus literally could not perform great miracles in certain geographical locations, when Mark supplements his statement with the justification for Jesus’ decision.
That being said…
Jesus the Man (Warning: Theory, Metaphysics, and Conjecture Contained Below)
Mark 13:32 does certainly describe limitations of Jesus with the foretelling of Jesus’ second coming:
But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.
Christians describe God as a Trinity. This concept is extraordinarily difficult to grasp, and I won’t make the claim that I know the perfect answer; however, I will give you my interpretation of the Trinity as it pertains to the Father and the Son (and I beg you to pardon my three-paragraph synopsis of a subject that is not fully comprehended by great Biblical scholars):
God is Jesus and yet the two are separate. Jesus, having a full understanding of God, can fully comprehend purity and divinity. As such, the decisions that Jesus makes while on Earth are right, as God is the standard of right. Still, Jesus cannot possess the qualities of the Father and still be a man. He cannot, for instance, be omnipotent, omnipresent, or omniscient; else, He would not be human. The New Testament makes it clear, though, that Jesus can openly communicate with God, and so He always has access to perfection. The miracles performed by Jesus, then, are performed via faith and the understanding that when God (the Son) makes claims, God (the Father) sees to it that the claims are honored.
Jesus’ humanity and separate knowledge are displayed in rather strong fashion in Matthew 26:39: "My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me….” This plea stems from Jesus’ ignorance. He does not possess the full knowledge of the Father, but does possess the knowledge of His impending death. It should not come as a surprise that one who is physiologically limited in knowledge capacity is also ignorant in some regards.
Lastly, I come back to a point made a few months ago: God (if He exists) cannot be of the universe and therefore cannot be constrained by universal properties such as time. So, although Jesus is separate from the Father, He is never truly separated from the Father, as the Father is not subject to time. In other words, no time passes in eternity while the two are separate, so they are both together and separate at the same “time”. This, I believe, is why God refers to Himself in the Bible as “I am.” Again, this is just me trying to wrap my head around the impossible-to-fully-comprehend concept of eternity, so take it for what it’s worth. I would imagine that other Biblical scholars could provide a different take.
Ideas and verses like those referenced above speak to a sense of honesty in the delivery of the New Testament. Judging from the Jewish tradition of the time, one would not expect a messiah like the one described in the New Testament. So far was the departure from the expected messiah-king, even those who witnessed the miracles first-hand found themselves doubting Jesus’ divinity after the crucifixion. In some ways, the difficulties contained in the New Testament can lead to doubt and questions; in the greater scope, though, it is precisely the inclusion of these difficulties that allows me to fully appreciate the integrity of the New Testament authors.
Mark is almost unanimously considered to be the earliest recorded gospel. There are some dissenting theories that place Matthew first; however, it is widely accepted that Mark pre-dates Matthew, Luke, and John. Matthew and Luke, in particular, incorporate much of Mark’s material into their own writings (though each significantly expounds upon Mark’s work), and, as I’ll discuss below, the writing style of Mark is consistent with a transitional piece of literature that seems to rely heavily on oral tradition as a supplement. The vast majority of scholars date Mark to within 30 years post-crucifixion.
Authorship
Again, with Mark, there is a heavy reliance on the tradition of the early church when it comes to authorship. While there is a tendency for some to dismiss Mark based on a lack of “concrete” evidence for authorship, it is important to note that the church in this case is actually quite a reliable and unbiased resource (remember: we’re talking authorship here). Later works speak of Mark as having been an associate of Peter; in fact, references to Mark himself are few and his prominence stems almost solely from his associations. “Major” apostles (e.g. Peter, Paul, and Barnabus), on the other hand, are well-known for their acts. The only recorded “acts” of Mark, on the other hand, are his greetings. (According to church tradition, Mark is the disciple known as John Mark in the Bible – Acts 12:12, 12:25, 15:37-40, Col 4:10, 2 Tim 4:11, 1 Pet 5:13).
Attributing authorship to Mark is historically tantamount to calling it an “anonymous” gospel; it is his sole act of historical importance. There is simply no reason for the early church to invent an author when there were 11+ ready-made authors to whom the gospel could have been ascribed.
Whether you subscribe to the primacy of Mark or Matthew, there is certainly a strong relationship between the two gospels and Luke. If we assume (and most do) that Mark came first, the use of Mark’s text in Matthew and Luke gives further credence to Mark as a legitimate source. Paul, too, cross-references the gospels. Such an interconnectedness and unity in message makes it difficult to simply dismiss any single gospel without dismissing the New Testament as a whole.
Because there is an interrelatedness easily seen when reading the gospels (especially Matthew, Mark, and Luke), I will not focus as heavily here in describing Mark’s beliefs about Jesus. In short, we find that Mark does not refute the core premises as Matthew:
Virgin Birth
Miracles
Adherence to Scripture
Authority as Son of God
Great Commission
Prophecies
Crucifixion
Resurrection
That being said, there are items on the above list that Mark either omits or downplays. This week, I want to focus on specific notable differences between Matthew and Mark as well as any difficulties associated with Mark, including Mark’s omissions and his seemingly different priorities. This is the approach I will continue to take over the next two weeks.
Omissions
The Book of Mark contains no birth stories and no record of the appearances following the resurrection.
Mark seems to have an utter disregard for Jesus’ place in history. He makes vague geographical and chronological references, whereas Matthew and Luke are much more astute in their attempts to document these details.
He does not document any of Jesus’ long discourses, which can be found in each of the other gospels.
He rarely speaks of Jesus as the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies.
Reasoning
I think the reason for Mark’s omissions and/or lack of detail is two-fold:
1. Mark is widely considered to be the earliest gospel and thus exists in a time when oral transmission of Jesus’ story was still very strong.
2. Mark was addressed to a specific audience.
Oral Tradition
Papias (as quoted by Eusebius) speaks of Mark’s association with Peter. What is often missed, however, is that Papias is not attempting to credit Mark via his associations; rather, he indicts the gospels, considering them to be secondary to oral tradition. Oral tradition, quite simply, was the way of the time. Some, like Papias, felt that written accounts did not provide enough flavor, or did not appropriately encompass the teachings of Jesus. Learning Jesus’ message via oral tradition, on the other hand, required that lessons apply to individual lives and situations. So, there was a sense of practicality lost in written accounts. The very fact that people of the time would debate whether to write things down is a clear indication of just how rich the oral tradition really was.
If we assume that Mark is indeed the earliest of the gospels (as is generally accepted), it’s logical to think of Mark as a transition from the oral tradition to the written word. The oral tradition was obviously serving its function as indicated by the church’s rapid early growth, so it makes sense then that as the number of first-hand sources began to dwindle, the value of written accounts would become more apparent. It is likely that many of Mark’s audience knew of Jesus. Mark was not necessarily attempting to teach the full story of Christ in his writings; rather, he was providing a written supplement to ensure that the core pieces of the story were not lost. Using such logic, it is reasonable to assume that later gospel writings should become more detailed. Matthew, Luke, and John, having written later, would have a better understanding of Mark’s limitations and would have a clearer picture of the ways in which Jesus’ teachings could be misunderstood; as such, they would have more incentive for certifying the details of Christ’s life and teachings.
The Audience
Whereas Matthew was most certainly written for the benefit of the Jews, Mark is written for the Romans. Matthew would be remiss had he not attended to details and Jewish traditions, but Mark’s audience would not be familiar with these elements. In Mark’s position, there is almost an all-or-nothing approach that must be taken: either you compile a synopsis of the Old Testament to accompany your work, or you simply teach about the life and times of Jesus.
The virgin birth, for instance, is of huge importance to the Jews (as it pertains to OT prophecy), but means little to the Gentiles. On the other hand, miracles, general life principles, and the story of the passion are paramount to understanding who Christ was, regardless of your background. I think this is something that can still be seen today. I’ve attended church regularly for years, and it is extremely rare to hear a sermon series on Jesus that ventures beyond his New Testament teachings.
Difficulties (in order of complexity, not chronologically)
Mark 16:8 - And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had seized them, and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.
As opposed to Matthew:
So they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples.
There are a number of ways to reconcile these verses. It should be noted first that Matthew speaks of their intention, while Mark speaks of their action. Second, while the women ran in fear, it may be that Mark was attempting to convey their intention to avoid speaking on the way to the disciples. Third, perhaps they “told” without ever “speaking.” Certainly, there is nothing here to lead to the conclusion that the two are contradictory.
Mark 16:9-20
These eleven verses are omitted from some Bibles, as they are not present in the earliest manuscripts of Mark. If you own a newer Bible and it contains these verses, it likely mentions the omission somewhere in the text or the notes. I will not use these verses as support.
Mark 6:5 – Apparent Lack of Power
And he could do no mighty work there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and healed them.
Taken out of context, it is very easy to view this verse and say, “Aha! Right here in the Bible, you can see that Jesus is limited.” It is important to note the surrounding verses, however, to establish the proper context for this verse. The story is set in Jesus’ home town:
“Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him. And Jesus said to them, "A prophet is not without honor, except in his hometown and among his relatives and in his own household." And he could do no mighty work there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and healed them. And he marveled because of their unbelief.
Mark tells us that Jesus could indeed heal the sick, and did. So, making the assumption that Jesus quite literally could not perform certain miracles doesn’t seem valid under the circumstances. He was certainly able to heal those who had faith in Him. I think it important to read this verse as an indication of Jesus’ moral objection to performing spectacular miracles. A modern example would be something like:
The governor was known for his stance against the death penalty and had pardoned all walk of criminal during his term; still, he could not pardon the vicious serial killer whose hands and feet were being bound to the table.
I think it is a much greater stretch (especially given the plethora of miracles Mark describes elsewhere) to assume that Jesus literally could not perform great miracles in certain geographical locations, when Mark supplements his statement with the justification for Jesus’ decision.
That being said…
Jesus the Man (Warning: Theory, Metaphysics, and Conjecture Contained Below)
Mark 13:32 does certainly describe limitations of Jesus with the foretelling of Jesus’ second coming:
But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.
Christians describe God as a Trinity. This concept is extraordinarily difficult to grasp, and I won’t make the claim that I know the perfect answer; however, I will give you my interpretation of the Trinity as it pertains to the Father and the Son (and I beg you to pardon my three-paragraph synopsis of a subject that is not fully comprehended by great Biblical scholars):
God is Jesus and yet the two are separate. Jesus, having a full understanding of God, can fully comprehend purity and divinity. As such, the decisions that Jesus makes while on Earth are right, as God is the standard of right. Still, Jesus cannot possess the qualities of the Father and still be a man. He cannot, for instance, be omnipotent, omnipresent, or omniscient; else, He would not be human. The New Testament makes it clear, though, that Jesus can openly communicate with God, and so He always has access to perfection. The miracles performed by Jesus, then, are performed via faith and the understanding that when God (the Son) makes claims, God (the Father) sees to it that the claims are honored.
Jesus’ humanity and separate knowledge are displayed in rather strong fashion in Matthew 26:39: "My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me….” This plea stems from Jesus’ ignorance. He does not possess the full knowledge of the Father, but does possess the knowledge of His impending death. It should not come as a surprise that one who is physiologically limited in knowledge capacity is also ignorant in some regards.
Lastly, I come back to a point made a few months ago: God (if He exists) cannot be of the universe and therefore cannot be constrained by universal properties such as time. So, although Jesus is separate from the Father, He is never truly separated from the Father, as the Father is not subject to time. In other words, no time passes in eternity while the two are separate, so they are both together and separate at the same “time”. This, I believe, is why God refers to Himself in the Bible as “I am.” Again, this is just me trying to wrap my head around the impossible-to-fully-comprehend concept of eternity, so take it for what it’s worth. I would imagine that other Biblical scholars could provide a different take.
Ideas and verses like those referenced above speak to a sense of honesty in the delivery of the New Testament. Judging from the Jewish tradition of the time, one would not expect a messiah like the one described in the New Testament. So far was the departure from the expected messiah-king, even those who witnessed the miracles first-hand found themselves doubting Jesus’ divinity after the crucifixion. In some ways, the difficulties contained in the New Testament can lead to doubt and questions; in the greater scope, though, it is precisely the inclusion of these difficulties that allows me to fully appreciate the integrity of the New Testament authors.
Friday, May 22, 2009
(Memorial Day Respite)
As I said after Week 8, it's nice to take a break every several posts. The comments section is seeing a lot of responses (and verbose ones at that), and Memorial Day weekend seems as good a time as any to postpone.
Regardless of your faith, I hope you take a moment this weekend to remember the sacrifices of our veterans. I was tasked years ago with an assignment that required me to interview my grandfather about his remembrances of World War II. I dreaded it (like most teens would), but the all-too-brief time I spent with him as he told me about his brethren is among my most treasured memories. This weekend, I urge you to take note of their sacrifices and to perhaps say a prayer of gratitude (or to simply give gratitude) for those who have served this country so honorably.
I look forward to next week.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Matthew: Part II (Week 18)
Jesus’ Characteristics and History as presented by Matthew
1. He was conceived by God through Mary.
2. He performed miracles.
3. He spoke to the Scripture.
4. He spoke as though he had authority.
5. He called the disciples to continue his teachings.
6. He was a prophet.
7. He was crucified.
8. He was resurrected and walked the earth in physical form.
Jesus and the Old Testament Prophecies
Matthew was obviously written for a primarily Jewish audience. So, it should not come as a surprise that it is the most laden with Old Testament verses and references. Much of Matthew is comprised of fulfillment passages, where the acts of Jesus are directly said to be fulfillment of OT prophecies. Matthew goes well beyond OT prophecies in his fulfillment passages. He cites OT verses that are not direct prophecies – verses that illustrate to him that Jesus is unquestionably the embodiment of the Word of God. Many scholars feel that this is Matthew’s own commentary and that this is why these fulfillment remarks vary from the other gospel accounts. I think this is probably the case; though, Jesus’ own assertions that He was the messiah likely prompted these passages. It’s likely, too, that the Biblical accounts of Jesus’ encounters with the Pharisees were not the only events of that kind, so it may be that Matthew was able to attribute to Jesus those qualities that Jesus verbalized as lacking in the Pharisees.
When Matthew speaks of fulfillment, I think it’s clear that he believes Jesus to be the messiah and that the fulfillment of OT prophecies coupled with the embodiment of Scripture is his way of presenting the most convincing case for Christ to the Jews. In large part, I think these verses should be viewed as tools to help better understand the mindset of Matthew.
1:23
"Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son,and they shall call his name Immanuel" (which means, God with us).
2:13
Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, "Rise, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you, for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy him." And he rose and took the child and his mother by night and departed to Egypt and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, "Out of Egypt I called my son."
4:12
Now when he heard that John had been arrested, he withdrew into Galilee. And leaving Nazareth he went and lived in Capernaum by the sea, in the territory of Zebulun and Naphtali, so that what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled: "The land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles—the people dwelling in darkness have seen a great light, and for those dwelling in the region and shadow of death, on them a light has dawned."
8:14
And when Jesus entered Peter’s house, he saw his mother-in-law lying sick with a fever. He touched her hand, and the fever left her, and she rose and began to serve him. That evening they brought to him many who were oppressed by demons, and he cast out the spirits with a word and healed all who were sick. This was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah: "He took our illnesses and bore our diseases."
12:15
Jesus, aware of this, withdrew from there. And many followed him, and he healed them all and ordered them not to make him known. This was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah: "Behold, my servant whom I have chosen, my beloved with whom my soul is well pleased. I will put my Spirit upon him, and he will proclaim justice to the Gentiles. He will not quarrel or cry aloud, nor will anyone hear his voice in the streets; a bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not quench, until he brings justice to victory; and in his name the Gentiles will hope."
13:34
All these things Jesus said to the crowds in parables; indeed, he said nothing to them without a parable. This was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet: "I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter what has been hidden since the foundation of the world."
21:1
Now when they drew near to Jerusalem and came to Bethphage, to the Mount of Olives, then Jesus sent two disciples, saying to them, "Go into the village in front of you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, and a colt with her. Untie them and bring them to me. If anyone says anything to you, you shall say, 'The Lord needs them,' and he will send them at once." This took place to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet, saying, "Say to the daughter of Zion, 'Behold, your king is coming to you, humble, and mounted on a donkey, and on a colt, the foal of a beast of burden.'"
26:47
While he was still speaking, Judas came, one of the twelve, and with him a great crowd with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and the elders of the people. Now the betrayer had given them a sign, saying, "The one I will kiss is the man; seize him." And he came up to Jesus at once and said, "Greetings, Rabbi!" And he kissed him. Jesus said to him, "Friend, do what you came to do."Then they came up and laid hands on Jesus and seized him. And behold, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his ear. Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then should the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?" At that hour Jesus said to the crowds, "Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me? Day after day I sat in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me. But all this has taken place that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled." Then all the disciples left him and fled.
27:3
Then when Judas, his betrayer, saw that Jesus was condemned, he changed his mind and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders, saying, "I have sinned by betraying innocent blood." They said, "What is that to us? See to it yourself." And throwing down the pieces of silver into the temple, he departed, and he went and hanged himself. But the chief priests, taking the pieces of silver, said, "It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, since it is blood money." So they took counsel and bought with them the potter’s field as a burial place for strangers. Therefore that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day. Then was fulfilled what had been spoken by the prophet Jeremiah, saying, "And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him on whom a price had been set by some of the sons of Israel, and they gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord directed me."
Several of these passages attribute the fulfillment quotations to Jesus Himself. In later weeks, I will compile a list of these passages to aid in the examination of the Old Testament.
Jesus the Prophet
Jesus prophecizes both the destruction of the temple and His own death.
24:1
Jesus left the temple and was going away, when his disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple. But he answered them, "You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down."
26:1
When Jesus had finished all these sayings, he said to his disciples, "You know that after two days the Passover is coming, and the Son of Man will be delivered up to be crucified."
26:20
When it was evening, he reclined at table with the twelve. And as they were eating, he said, "Truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me." And they were very sorrowful and began to say to him one after another, "Is it I, Lord?" He answered, "He who has dipped his hand in the dish with me will betray me.
26:34
Jesus said to him, "Truly, I tell you, this very night, before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times. "Peter said to him, "Even if I must die with you, I will not deny you!" And all the disciples said the same.
The Crucifixion
27:32
As they went out, they found a man of Cyrene, Simon by name. They compelled this man to carry his cross. And when they came to a place called Golgotha (which means Place of a Skull), they offered him wine to drink, mixed with gall, but when he tasted it, he would not drink it. And when they had crucified him, they divided his garments among them by casting lots. Then they sat down and kept watch over him there. And over his head they put the charge against him, which read, "This is Jesus, the King of the Jews." Then two robbers were crucified with him, one on the right and one on the left. And those who passed by derided him, wagging their heads and saying, "You who would destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, save yourself! If you are the Son of God, come down from the cross." So also the chief priests, with the scribes and elders, mocked him, saying, "He saved others; he cannot save himself. He is the King of Israel; let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him. He trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he desires him. For he said, 'I am the Son of God.'" And the robbers who were crucified with him also reviled him in the same way.
Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land until the ninth hour. And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" that is, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" And some of the bystanders, hearing it, said, "This man is calling Elijah." And one of them at once ran and took a sponge, filled it with sour wine, and put it on a reed and gave it to him to drink. But the others said, "Wait, let us see whether Elijah will come to save him." And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice and yielded up his spirit.
And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And the earth shook, and the rocks were split. The tombs also were opened. And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many. When the centurion and those who were with him, keeping watch over Jesus, saw the earthquake and what took place, they were filled with awe and said, "Truly this was the Son of God!"
The Resurrection
28:1
Now after the Sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb. And behold, there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone and sat on it. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow. And for fear of him the guards trembled and became like dead men. But the angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. He is not here, for he has risen, as he said. Come, see the place where he lay. Then go quickly and tell his disciples that he has risen from the dead, and behold, he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him. See, I have told you." So they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples. And behold, Jesus met them and said, "Greetings!" And they came up and took hold of his feet and worshiped him. Then Jesus said to them, "Do not be afraid; go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee, and there they will see me."
The Great Commission
28:16
Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted. And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age."
The “Great Commission” surfaces in each of the gospels. Jesus called upon the disciples to continue His ministry. And it would seem that they did so with fervor.
Difficulties in Matthew
Jesus the Nazrene (2:23)
There are a few OT passages that Matthew paraphrases (e.g. Micah 5:2, Isaiah 9:1). There are a few potential explanations for why Matthew would “be called a Nazrene,” but the most likely one seems to be that Nazareth was a bit of a dump and “Nazrene” would have been a scornful term. This fits well with the prophetic idea that He would be “despised and rejected.”
Three Days and Nights
Matthew is clear that Jesus rose from the grave on the third day; yet, Christ said that he would be “three days and three nights” in the earth. In other Biblical passages (i.e. Esther), it is clear that “three days and nights” does not mean 72 hours; rather, it means any part of three days/nights.
Most of the passages sometimes thought to be inaccurate are believed to be so in comparison to the other gospels. These I will discuss in a few weeks.
Time and time again, Matthew demonstrates that he believes Jesus to be the messiah. The gospel does not offer up explanations to commonplace events; rather, the events of Matthew would be viewed as supernatural in any era (including today). If Matthew’s account is truthful, the events he describes are simply beyond us. Much of the common accounts we'll discuss more in a few weeks, after we have had a chance to view each of the gospels.
1. He was conceived by God through Mary.
2. He performed miracles.
3. He spoke to the Scripture.
4. He spoke as though he had authority.
5. He called the disciples to continue his teachings.
6. He was a prophet.
7. He was crucified.
8. He was resurrected and walked the earth in physical form.
Jesus and the Old Testament Prophecies
Matthew was obviously written for a primarily Jewish audience. So, it should not come as a surprise that it is the most laden with Old Testament verses and references. Much of Matthew is comprised of fulfillment passages, where the acts of Jesus are directly said to be fulfillment of OT prophecies. Matthew goes well beyond OT prophecies in his fulfillment passages. He cites OT verses that are not direct prophecies – verses that illustrate to him that Jesus is unquestionably the embodiment of the Word of God. Many scholars feel that this is Matthew’s own commentary and that this is why these fulfillment remarks vary from the other gospel accounts. I think this is probably the case; though, Jesus’ own assertions that He was the messiah likely prompted these passages. It’s likely, too, that the Biblical accounts of Jesus’ encounters with the Pharisees were not the only events of that kind, so it may be that Matthew was able to attribute to Jesus those qualities that Jesus verbalized as lacking in the Pharisees.
When Matthew speaks of fulfillment, I think it’s clear that he believes Jesus to be the messiah and that the fulfillment of OT prophecies coupled with the embodiment of Scripture is his way of presenting the most convincing case for Christ to the Jews. In large part, I think these verses should be viewed as tools to help better understand the mindset of Matthew.
1:23
"Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son,and they shall call his name Immanuel" (which means, God with us).
2:13
Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, "Rise, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you, for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy him." And he rose and took the child and his mother by night and departed to Egypt and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, "Out of Egypt I called my son."
4:12
Now when he heard that John had been arrested, he withdrew into Galilee. And leaving Nazareth he went and lived in Capernaum by the sea, in the territory of Zebulun and Naphtali, so that what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled: "The land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles—the people dwelling in darkness have seen a great light, and for those dwelling in the region and shadow of death, on them a light has dawned."
8:14
And when Jesus entered Peter’s house, he saw his mother-in-law lying sick with a fever. He touched her hand, and the fever left her, and she rose and began to serve him. That evening they brought to him many who were oppressed by demons, and he cast out the spirits with a word and healed all who were sick. This was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah: "He took our illnesses and bore our diseases."
12:15
Jesus, aware of this, withdrew from there. And many followed him, and he healed them all and ordered them not to make him known. This was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah: "Behold, my servant whom I have chosen, my beloved with whom my soul is well pleased. I will put my Spirit upon him, and he will proclaim justice to the Gentiles. He will not quarrel or cry aloud, nor will anyone hear his voice in the streets; a bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not quench, until he brings justice to victory; and in his name the Gentiles will hope."
13:34
All these things Jesus said to the crowds in parables; indeed, he said nothing to them without a parable. This was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet: "I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter what has been hidden since the foundation of the world."
21:1
Now when they drew near to Jerusalem and came to Bethphage, to the Mount of Olives, then Jesus sent two disciples, saying to them, "Go into the village in front of you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, and a colt with her. Untie them and bring them to me. If anyone says anything to you, you shall say, 'The Lord needs them,' and he will send them at once." This took place to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet, saying, "Say to the daughter of Zion, 'Behold, your king is coming to you, humble, and mounted on a donkey, and on a colt, the foal of a beast of burden.'"
26:47
While he was still speaking, Judas came, one of the twelve, and with him a great crowd with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and the elders of the people. Now the betrayer had given them a sign, saying, "The one I will kiss is the man; seize him." And he came up to Jesus at once and said, "Greetings, Rabbi!" And he kissed him. Jesus said to him, "Friend, do what you came to do."Then they came up and laid hands on Jesus and seized him. And behold, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his ear. Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then should the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?" At that hour Jesus said to the crowds, "Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me? Day after day I sat in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me. But all this has taken place that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled." Then all the disciples left him and fled.
27:3
Then when Judas, his betrayer, saw that Jesus was condemned, he changed his mind and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders, saying, "I have sinned by betraying innocent blood." They said, "What is that to us? See to it yourself." And throwing down the pieces of silver into the temple, he departed, and he went and hanged himself. But the chief priests, taking the pieces of silver, said, "It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, since it is blood money." So they took counsel and bought with them the potter’s field as a burial place for strangers. Therefore that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day. Then was fulfilled what had been spoken by the prophet Jeremiah, saying, "And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him on whom a price had been set by some of the sons of Israel, and they gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord directed me."
Several of these passages attribute the fulfillment quotations to Jesus Himself. In later weeks, I will compile a list of these passages to aid in the examination of the Old Testament.
Jesus the Prophet
Jesus prophecizes both the destruction of the temple and His own death.
24:1
Jesus left the temple and was going away, when his disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple. But he answered them, "You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down."
26:1
When Jesus had finished all these sayings, he said to his disciples, "You know that after two days the Passover is coming, and the Son of Man will be delivered up to be crucified."
26:20
When it was evening, he reclined at table with the twelve. And as they were eating, he said, "Truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me." And they were very sorrowful and began to say to him one after another, "Is it I, Lord?" He answered, "He who has dipped his hand in the dish with me will betray me.
26:34
Jesus said to him, "Truly, I tell you, this very night, before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times. "Peter said to him, "Even if I must die with you, I will not deny you!" And all the disciples said the same.
The Crucifixion
27:32
As they went out, they found a man of Cyrene, Simon by name. They compelled this man to carry his cross. And when they came to a place called Golgotha (which means Place of a Skull), they offered him wine to drink, mixed with gall, but when he tasted it, he would not drink it. And when they had crucified him, they divided his garments among them by casting lots. Then they sat down and kept watch over him there. And over his head they put the charge against him, which read, "This is Jesus, the King of the Jews." Then two robbers were crucified with him, one on the right and one on the left. And those who passed by derided him, wagging their heads and saying, "You who would destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, save yourself! If you are the Son of God, come down from the cross." So also the chief priests, with the scribes and elders, mocked him, saying, "He saved others; he cannot save himself. He is the King of Israel; let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him. He trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he desires him. For he said, 'I am the Son of God.'" And the robbers who were crucified with him also reviled him in the same way.
Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land until the ninth hour. And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" that is, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" And some of the bystanders, hearing it, said, "This man is calling Elijah." And one of them at once ran and took a sponge, filled it with sour wine, and put it on a reed and gave it to him to drink. But the others said, "Wait, let us see whether Elijah will come to save him." And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice and yielded up his spirit.
And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And the earth shook, and the rocks were split. The tombs also were opened. And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many. When the centurion and those who were with him, keeping watch over Jesus, saw the earthquake and what took place, they were filled with awe and said, "Truly this was the Son of God!"
The Resurrection
28:1
Now after the Sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb. And behold, there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone and sat on it. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow. And for fear of him the guards trembled and became like dead men. But the angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. He is not here, for he has risen, as he said. Come, see the place where he lay. Then go quickly and tell his disciples that he has risen from the dead, and behold, he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him. See, I have told you." So they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples. And behold, Jesus met them and said, "Greetings!" And they came up and took hold of his feet and worshiped him. Then Jesus said to them, "Do not be afraid; go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee, and there they will see me."
The Great Commission
28:16
Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted. And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age."
The “Great Commission” surfaces in each of the gospels. Jesus called upon the disciples to continue His ministry. And it would seem that they did so with fervor.
Difficulties in Matthew
Jesus the Nazrene (2:23)
There are a few OT passages that Matthew paraphrases (e.g. Micah 5:2, Isaiah 9:1). There are a few potential explanations for why Matthew would “be called a Nazrene,” but the most likely one seems to be that Nazareth was a bit of a dump and “Nazrene” would have been a scornful term. This fits well with the prophetic idea that He would be “despised and rejected.”
Three Days and Nights
Matthew is clear that Jesus rose from the grave on the third day; yet, Christ said that he would be “three days and three nights” in the earth. In other Biblical passages (i.e. Esther), it is clear that “three days and nights” does not mean 72 hours; rather, it means any part of three days/nights.
Most of the passages sometimes thought to be inaccurate are believed to be so in comparison to the other gospels. These I will discuss in a few weeks.
Time and time again, Matthew demonstrates that he believes Jesus to be the messiah. The gospel does not offer up explanations to commonplace events; rather, the events of Matthew would be viewed as supernatural in any era (including today). If Matthew’s account is truthful, the events he describes are simply beyond us. Much of the common accounts we'll discuss more in a few weeks, after we have had a chance to view each of the gospels.
Friday, May 8, 2009
Matthew: Part I (Week 17)
Last week’s study focused more on Jesus as a man of history, so I made only passing allusions to Jesus as the messiah where those allusions provided further support the notion of a real, historical Jesus. As we study the gospels, however, I would do a serious injustice to the writer’s descriptions of Jesus if I did not address their records of Jesus’ claims and “miracles”.
Jesus the Christ
As I look at the individual gospels and other New Testament works, I think it’s important to ask what the motivation would be to write these stories if they are, in fact, not true (or not at least believed to be true). If you’ve read as many novels or watched as many crime dramas as I have, you know that “motive and opportunity” – while not proof by themselves – are big players. So, what might be the motive for concocting a messiah, especially a messiah as described in the New Testament?
Secondary fame (I know that guy!)
Prestige
Adoration
Power
Wealth
Glory in martyrdom
Credibility
Heaven (remember, they would be blaspheming)
A disdain for family life
Avoidance of embarrassment (if they believed Jesus until He died)
The “reward” for the disciples was predictable. It’s beyond comprehension to think that the disciples spread such a falsehood as a selfish venture; there was just so very little to gain and so very much to lose. It’s exceedingly more plausible that the disciples and the gospel authors believed Jesus to be the messiah. They suffered imprisonment, torture, and death rather than relinquish these beliefs. I think it is disingenuous to allege that the disciples were simply deceivers; there is simply no conceivable reason for so many to remain so resolute.
Last week I made the claim that “liars make poor martyrs.” One thing that I did not address was the fact that martyrdom is not linked solely to Christianity. So, what does the martyrdom of the disciples prove, then? To me, it simply equates to belief. I firmly believe, for instance, that the perpetrators of September 11th trusted that they would be welcomed into heaven as a result of their actions. I can see no evidence to the contrary. I firmly believe that the Heavens Gate cult trusted that they would be welcomed aboard a spaceship nesting behind a comet. A willingness to die (especially to die a torturous death) is a clear demonstration of belief. Does belief necessarily equal truth? Absolutely not! Certainly, people can follow blindly or be deceived. So, what is it about the disciples that sets them apart?
1. They attested to knowing Jesus first-hand.
2. They attested to witnessing and performing first-hand miracles.
3. They attested to seeing Jesus die.
4. They attested to seeing Jesus alive three days later.
In a nutshell, they attested to things that cannot, when viewed together, be attributed to a deceptive Jesus.
A Poor Way to Construct a Legend
When historians look at records from antiquity, there are certain elements that can help them to ascertain whether the record was biased (and hence less reputable). Does the story portray the writer as a hero? Was it commissioned by an emperor? Did it paint the picture the public wanted to see? This formula really hasn’t changed since antiquity. If a professional athlete is accused of taking drugs, and his agent denies the allegations, most take this with a grain of salt. If a documentary talks of the evil George Bush, there’s an element of catering to public opinion that should be weighed. On the other hand, let’s look at a book like Ball Four. The contents of Ball Four flew in the face of the “codes” of baseball and led to Jim Bouton being ostracized from a game he loved. He paid a price for revealing certain truths about the game of baseball, and there’s no doubt that his book gained credibility when the public saw what he surrendered to bring the truth. The disciples surrendered much, much more and gained far less.
We should consider the type of story one would concoct around the turn of the millennium if one wished to be taken seriously. If the disciples constructed a lie, they did a really bad job of it (if their collective goal was to build Christianity during their lifetimes).
They don’t generally tend to paint themselves in the best light.
They don’t portray Jesus as the messiah expected by the Jews.
They laud tax collectors and other generally-despised figures while speaking ill of the sages and accepted religious leaders.
They incorporate witnesses who were generally considered to be untrustworthy (e.g. women).
They include the Gentiles.
They speak against accepted law as handed down by oral traditions.
This simply isn’t a formula for success.
Matthew: Part I
Most would not describe Matthew as their “favorite” gospel; however, for our purposes, his writings help to tie the NT works back to the OT ideas of the messiah. Matthew also tries diligently to show how he believes Jesus fills that particular role, so we’ll be able to use Matthew in a back-and-forth study. This week, I want to examine a few facts and assumptions regarding the author himself and I want to outline key things Matthew wrote about Jesus. I’ll try as well to address a number of general objections to Matthew’s writings (though I’ll save objections to the gospels as a whole for several weeks… it will help a great deal to examine each of the four before discussing them as a whole).
Authorship
Matthew is so named because it is generally attributed to Matthew the apostle (tax-collector and one of the “Twelve”). This ascription stems mainly from the early church, though confirming historical documentation is somewhat lackluster (i.e. Eusebius). The main reason for upholding the early patristic tradition is that the qualities of the gospel fit a Jewish tax-collector-turned-Christian:
The author is fluent in Hebrew and Greek (qualities a tax-collector must possess), in a time where the majority of people were illiterate.
The author conveys the message of Jesus’ ostracism rather nicely (again, something a tax-collector would be intimately familiar with).
There is an abundance of references to tax collection and money matters.
Evidence does not point elsewhere.
Overall, without the early patristic tradition, there is no direct evidence to link Matthew to the gospel, so authorship is based almost exclusively on the early church’s assessment.
Date
As with most any documents from antiquity, there is some debate regarding exactly when the gospel was first authored. Most modern scholars believe that the Mark pre-dates Matthew. This notion stems largely from the thought that Matthew appears to build upon many of Mark’s passages. Countering this idea, however, is the Griesbach Hypothesis, which asserts that Mark is actually an intentionally-condensed form of Matthew and Luke (likely for the benefit of Gentile readers). Either of these theories generally place Matthew somewhere between the 50s and 80s AD.
Then Was Fulfilled
Matthew takes great care in linking Jesus to the Scripture. From the Semitic language of the ancient texts, it is clear that he has a full understanding of Jewish language and traditions, and it appears that his primary audience was Israel (as in “the nation of”), so providing reference to the Scripture would have been paramount in calling Jews to Jesus. From his references of Jesus’ fulfillment of prophecies (1:22, 2:15, 2:17, 2:23, 4:14, 8:17, 12:17, 21:4, 27:9), there can be little doubt that Matthew is attesting to the fact that Jesus is indeed the messiah predicted in the Old Testament.
Jesus’ Characteristics and History as presented by Matthew
1. He was conceived by God through Mary.
2. He performed miracles.
3. He spoke to the Scripture.*
4. He spoke as though he had authority.
5. He called the disciples to continue his teachings.*
6. He was a prophet.*
7. He was crucified. *
8. He was resurrected and walked the earth in physical form.*
* - Part of next week’s discussion
The Virgin Mary
1:18
Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit.
Jesus’ Miracles
4:23-24
And he went throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every affliction among the people. So his fame spread throughout all Syria, and they brought him all the sick, those afflicted with various diseases and pains, those oppressed by demons, epileptics, and paralytics, and he healed them.
8:1-4
When he came down from the mountain, great crowds followed him. And behold, a leper came to him and knelt before him, saying, "Lord, if you will, you can make me clean." And Jesus stretched out his hand and touched him, saying, "I will; be clean." And immediately his leprosy was cleansed. 4And Jesus said to him, "See that you say nothing to anyone, but go, show yourself to the priest and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a proof to them."
8:5-13
When he entered Capernaum, a centurion came forward to him, appealing to him, "Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, suffering terribly." And he said to him, "I will come and heal him." But the centurion replied, "Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof, but only say the word, and my servant will be healed…. And to the centurion Jesus said, "Go; let it be done for you as you have believed." And the servant was healed at that very moment.
8:14-16
And when Jesus entered Peter’s house, he saw his mother-in-law lying sick with a fever. He touched her hand, and the fever left her, and she rose and began to serve him. That evening they brought to him many who were oppressed by demons, and he cast out the spirits with a word and healed all who were sick.
8:23-27
And when he got into the boat, his disciples followed him. And behold, there arose a great storm on the sea, so that the boat was being swamped by the waves; but he was asleep. And they went and woke him, saying, "Save us, Lord; we are perishing." And he said to them, "Why are you afraid, O you of little faith?" Then he rose and rebuked the winds and the sea, and there was a great calm. And the men marveled, saying, "What sort of man is this, that even winds and sea obey him?"
9:1-8
And getting into a boat he crossed over and came to his own city. And behold, some people brought to him a paralytic, lying on a bed. And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Take heart, my son; your sins are forgiven." And behold, some of the scribes said to themselves, "This man is blaspheming." But Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said, "Why do you think evil in your hearts? For which is easier, to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Rise and walk'? But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins"—he then said to the paralytic—"Rise, pick up your bed and go home." And he rose and went home. When the crowds saw it, they were afraid, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to men.
9:18-26
While he was saying these things to them, behold, a ruler came in and knelt before him, saying, "My daughter has just died, but come and lay your hand on her, and she will live." And Jesus rose and followed him, with his disciples. And behold, a woman who had suffered from a discharge of blood for twelve years came up behind him and touched the fringe of his garment, for she said to herself, "If I only touch his garment, I will be made well." Jesus turned, and seeing her he said, "Take heart, daughter; your faith has made you well." And instantly the woman was made well. And when Jesus came to the ruler’s house and saw the flute players and the crowd making a commotion, he said, "Go away, for the girl is not dead but sleeping." And they laughed at him. But when the crowd had been put outside, he went in and took her by the hand, and the girl arose. And the report of this went through all that district.
9:27-34
And as Jesus passed on from there, two blind men followed him, crying aloud, "Have mercy on us, Son of David." When he entered the house, the blind men came to him, and Jesus said to them, "Do you believe that I am able to do this?" They said to him, "Yes, Lord." Then he touched their eyes, saying, "According to your faith be it done to you." And their eyes were opened. And Jesus sternly warned them, "See that no one knows about it." But they went away and spread his fame through all that district.
As they were going away, behold, a demon-oppressed man who was mute was brought to him. And when the demon had been cast out, the mute man spoke. And the crowds marveled, saying, "Never was anything like this seen in Israel." But the Pharisees said, "He casts out demons by the prince of demons."
I didn’t include all of the reported miracles, but this gives a good idea of what Matthew claimed Jesus had done. Coupled with the resurrection, the list of miracles doesn’t leave room for the assumption that Jesus simply deceived the disciples or that He was a wise sage who taught them a better understanding of the Scripture. According to Matthew, He cured the incurable, healed from afar, commanded the seas, made the blind see, and raised the dead. The acts described are well beyond David Copperfield or Benny Hinn.
The Disciple’s Powers
Matthew 10:1-4
And he called to him his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every disease and every affliction. The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; Simon the Cananaean, and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.
Matthew 10 makes it extraordinarily clear that there is no room for “Jesus the Deceiver.”
Jesus’ Authority
7:28-29
And when Jesus finished these sayings, the crowds were astonished at his teaching, for he was teaching them as one who had authority, and not as their scribes.
The authority of Jesus is really what Matthew is all about. Authority to rebuke the words of the Pharisees lies with God alone. The moral authority that Jesus clearly feels belongs to Him is an authority that only belongs to God. This verse is just another way of saying that Jesus is God and that He does have this authority.
Throughout Matthew, one thing is clear: Jesus cannot have simply deceived Matthew. After all, the things that Matthew describes are simply not possible without the supernatural.
Next Week
In the interest of not allowing this week’s post to exceed last week’s, I’ll be addressing Matthew in two parts. Mark, Luke, and John will likely not meet the same fate, since a lot of the things addressed this week and next will pertain to all of the gospels.
Jesus the Christ
As I look at the individual gospels and other New Testament works, I think it’s important to ask what the motivation would be to write these stories if they are, in fact, not true (or not at least believed to be true). If you’ve read as many novels or watched as many crime dramas as I have, you know that “motive and opportunity” – while not proof by themselves – are big players. So, what might be the motive for concocting a messiah, especially a messiah as described in the New Testament?
Secondary fame (I know that guy!)
Glory in martyrdom
A disdain for family life
Avoidance of embarrassment (if they believed Jesus until He died)
The “reward” for the disciples was predictable. It’s beyond comprehension to think that the disciples spread such a falsehood as a selfish venture; there was just so very little to gain and so very much to lose. It’s exceedingly more plausible that the disciples and the gospel authors believed Jesus to be the messiah. They suffered imprisonment, torture, and death rather than relinquish these beliefs. I think it is disingenuous to allege that the disciples were simply deceivers; there is simply no conceivable reason for so many to remain so resolute.
Last week I made the claim that “liars make poor martyrs.” One thing that I did not address was the fact that martyrdom is not linked solely to Christianity. So, what does the martyrdom of the disciples prove, then? To me, it simply equates to belief. I firmly believe, for instance, that the perpetrators of September 11th trusted that they would be welcomed into heaven as a result of their actions. I can see no evidence to the contrary. I firmly believe that the Heavens Gate cult trusted that they would be welcomed aboard a spaceship nesting behind a comet. A willingness to die (especially to die a torturous death) is a clear demonstration of belief. Does belief necessarily equal truth? Absolutely not! Certainly, people can follow blindly or be deceived. So, what is it about the disciples that sets them apart?
1. They attested to knowing Jesus first-hand.
2. They attested to witnessing and performing first-hand miracles.
3. They attested to seeing Jesus die.
4. They attested to seeing Jesus alive three days later.
In a nutshell, they attested to things that cannot, when viewed together, be attributed to a deceptive Jesus.
A Poor Way to Construct a Legend
When historians look at records from antiquity, there are certain elements that can help them to ascertain whether the record was biased (and hence less reputable). Does the story portray the writer as a hero? Was it commissioned by an emperor? Did it paint the picture the public wanted to see? This formula really hasn’t changed since antiquity. If a professional athlete is accused of taking drugs, and his agent denies the allegations, most take this with a grain of salt. If a documentary talks of the evil George Bush, there’s an element of catering to public opinion that should be weighed. On the other hand, let’s look at a book like Ball Four. The contents of Ball Four flew in the face of the “codes” of baseball and led to Jim Bouton being ostracized from a game he loved. He paid a price for revealing certain truths about the game of baseball, and there’s no doubt that his book gained credibility when the public saw what he surrendered to bring the truth. The disciples surrendered much, much more and gained far less.
We should consider the type of story one would concoct around the turn of the millennium if one wished to be taken seriously. If the disciples constructed a lie, they did a really bad job of it (if their collective goal was to build Christianity during their lifetimes).
They don’t generally tend to paint themselves in the best light.
They don’t portray Jesus as the messiah expected by the Jews.
They laud tax collectors and other generally-despised figures while speaking ill of the sages and accepted religious leaders.
They incorporate witnesses who were generally considered to be untrustworthy (e.g. women).
They include the Gentiles.
They speak against accepted law as handed down by oral traditions.
This simply isn’t a formula for success.
Matthew: Part I
Most would not describe Matthew as their “favorite” gospel; however, for our purposes, his writings help to tie the NT works back to the OT ideas of the messiah. Matthew also tries diligently to show how he believes Jesus fills that particular role, so we’ll be able to use Matthew in a back-and-forth study. This week, I want to examine a few facts and assumptions regarding the author himself and I want to outline key things Matthew wrote about Jesus. I’ll try as well to address a number of general objections to Matthew’s writings (though I’ll save objections to the gospels as a whole for several weeks… it will help a great deal to examine each of the four before discussing them as a whole).
Authorship
Matthew is so named because it is generally attributed to Matthew the apostle (tax-collector and one of the “Twelve”). This ascription stems mainly from the early church, though confirming historical documentation is somewhat lackluster (i.e. Eusebius). The main reason for upholding the early patristic tradition is that the qualities of the gospel fit a Jewish tax-collector-turned-Christian:
The author is fluent in Hebrew and Greek (qualities a tax-collector must possess), in a time where the majority of people were illiterate.
The author conveys the message of Jesus’ ostracism rather nicely (again, something a tax-collector would be intimately familiar with).
There is an abundance of references to tax collection and money matters.
Evidence does not point elsewhere.
Overall, without the early patristic tradition, there is no direct evidence to link Matthew to the gospel, so authorship is based almost exclusively on the early church’s assessment.
Date
As with most any documents from antiquity, there is some debate regarding exactly when the gospel was first authored. Most modern scholars believe that the Mark pre-dates Matthew. This notion stems largely from the thought that Matthew appears to build upon many of Mark’s passages. Countering this idea, however, is the Griesbach Hypothesis, which asserts that Mark is actually an intentionally-condensed form of Matthew and Luke (likely for the benefit of Gentile readers). Either of these theories generally place Matthew somewhere between the 50s and 80s AD.
Then Was Fulfilled
Matthew takes great care in linking Jesus to the Scripture. From the Semitic language of the ancient texts, it is clear that he has a full understanding of Jewish language and traditions, and it appears that his primary audience was Israel (as in “the nation of”), so providing reference to the Scripture would have been paramount in calling Jews to Jesus. From his references of Jesus’ fulfillment of prophecies (1:22, 2:15, 2:17, 2:23, 4:14, 8:17, 12:17, 21:4, 27:9), there can be little doubt that Matthew is attesting to the fact that Jesus is indeed the messiah predicted in the Old Testament.
Jesus’ Characteristics and History as presented by Matthew
1. He was conceived by God through Mary.
2. He performed miracles.
3. He spoke to the Scripture.*
4. He spoke as though he had authority.
5. He called the disciples to continue his teachings.*
6. He was a prophet.*
7. He was crucified. *
8. He was resurrected and walked the earth in physical form.*
* - Part of next week’s discussion
The Virgin Mary
1:18
Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit.
Jesus’ Miracles
4:23-24
And he went throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every affliction among the people. So his fame spread throughout all Syria, and they brought him all the sick, those afflicted with various diseases and pains, those oppressed by demons, epileptics, and paralytics, and he healed them.
8:1-4
When he came down from the mountain, great crowds followed him. And behold, a leper came to him and knelt before him, saying, "Lord, if you will, you can make me clean." And Jesus stretched out his hand and touched him, saying, "I will; be clean." And immediately his leprosy was cleansed. 4And Jesus said to him, "See that you say nothing to anyone, but go, show yourself to the priest and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a proof to them."
8:5-13
When he entered Capernaum, a centurion came forward to him, appealing to him, "Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, suffering terribly." And he said to him, "I will come and heal him." But the centurion replied, "Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof, but only say the word, and my servant will be healed…. And to the centurion Jesus said, "Go; let it be done for you as you have believed." And the servant was healed at that very moment.
8:14-16
And when Jesus entered Peter’s house, he saw his mother-in-law lying sick with a fever. He touched her hand, and the fever left her, and she rose and began to serve him. That evening they brought to him many who were oppressed by demons, and he cast out the spirits with a word and healed all who were sick.
8:23-27
And when he got into the boat, his disciples followed him. And behold, there arose a great storm on the sea, so that the boat was being swamped by the waves; but he was asleep. And they went and woke him, saying, "Save us, Lord; we are perishing." And he said to them, "Why are you afraid, O you of little faith?" Then he rose and rebuked the winds and the sea, and there was a great calm. And the men marveled, saying, "What sort of man is this, that even winds and sea obey him?"
9:1-8
And getting into a boat he crossed over and came to his own city. And behold, some people brought to him a paralytic, lying on a bed. And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Take heart, my son; your sins are forgiven." And behold, some of the scribes said to themselves, "This man is blaspheming." But Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said, "Why do you think evil in your hearts? For which is easier, to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Rise and walk'? But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins"—he then said to the paralytic—"Rise, pick up your bed and go home." And he rose and went home. When the crowds saw it, they were afraid, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to men.
9:18-26
While he was saying these things to them, behold, a ruler came in and knelt before him, saying, "My daughter has just died, but come and lay your hand on her, and she will live." And Jesus rose and followed him, with his disciples. And behold, a woman who had suffered from a discharge of blood for twelve years came up behind him and touched the fringe of his garment, for she said to herself, "If I only touch his garment, I will be made well." Jesus turned, and seeing her he said, "Take heart, daughter; your faith has made you well." And instantly the woman was made well. And when Jesus came to the ruler’s house and saw the flute players and the crowd making a commotion, he said, "Go away, for the girl is not dead but sleeping." And they laughed at him. But when the crowd had been put outside, he went in and took her by the hand, and the girl arose. And the report of this went through all that district.
9:27-34
And as Jesus passed on from there, two blind men followed him, crying aloud, "Have mercy on us, Son of David." When he entered the house, the blind men came to him, and Jesus said to them, "Do you believe that I am able to do this?" They said to him, "Yes, Lord." Then he touched their eyes, saying, "According to your faith be it done to you." And their eyes were opened. And Jesus sternly warned them, "See that no one knows about it." But they went away and spread his fame through all that district.
As they were going away, behold, a demon-oppressed man who was mute was brought to him. And when the demon had been cast out, the mute man spoke. And the crowds marveled, saying, "Never was anything like this seen in Israel." But the Pharisees said, "He casts out demons by the prince of demons."
I didn’t include all of the reported miracles, but this gives a good idea of what Matthew claimed Jesus had done. Coupled with the resurrection, the list of miracles doesn’t leave room for the assumption that Jesus simply deceived the disciples or that He was a wise sage who taught them a better understanding of the Scripture. According to Matthew, He cured the incurable, healed from afar, commanded the seas, made the blind see, and raised the dead. The acts described are well beyond David Copperfield or Benny Hinn.
The Disciple’s Powers
Matthew 10:1-4
And he called to him his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every disease and every affliction. The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; Simon the Cananaean, and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.
Matthew 10 makes it extraordinarily clear that there is no room for “Jesus the Deceiver.”
Jesus’ Authority
7:28-29
And when Jesus finished these sayings, the crowds were astonished at his teaching, for he was teaching them as one who had authority, and not as their scribes.
The authority of Jesus is really what Matthew is all about. Authority to rebuke the words of the Pharisees lies with God alone. The moral authority that Jesus clearly feels belongs to Him is an authority that only belongs to God. This verse is just another way of saying that Jesus is God and that He does have this authority.
Throughout Matthew, one thing is clear: Jesus cannot have simply deceived Matthew. After all, the things that Matthew describes are simply not possible without the supernatural.
Next Week
In the interest of not allowing this week’s post to exceed last week’s, I’ll be addressing Matthew in two parts. Mark, Luke, and John will likely not meet the same fate, since a lot of the things addressed this week and next will pertain to all of the gospels.
Friday, May 1, 2009
The Jesus of History (Week 16)
“That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be.” – John Dominic Crossan (co-founder of the Jesus Seminar)
The more you study religion, the more theories you will inevitably encounter. Although the theory that Jesus never really existed at all is not widely accepted, it has cropped up from time to time (see below), so I want to take this week to reveal the evidence that I have encountered to support the historical Jesus. If there does exist a good deal of latent doubt regarding Jesus’ existence, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to begin an in-depth study of the New Testament until I first establish that Jesus was a real historical figure.
“It is even possible to mount a serious, though not widely supported, historical case that Jesus never lived at all, as has been done by, among others Professor G. A. Wells of the University of London in a number of books, including Did Jesus Exist? Although Jesus probably existed.” - Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion
(Dr. G.A. Wells actually taught German at the University of London, but I’m sure he presents a strong case.)
BIBLICAL EVIDENCE
In a critical examination of the veracity of Biblical text, there is a certain inclination to toss out the writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, et al because there is a lack of objectivity inherent in any persuasive literature (and the New Testament certainly qualifies as such). Such a sentiment is certainly understandable; while there is a great deal of biographical information in the New Testament, the authors are definitely attempting to persuade the reader to regard Jesus’ teachings as truth. There are a few things to be considered, though, before setting aside the most comprehensive sources:
1. The dates of the accounts (and the subsequent implications)
2. The potential motivation of the authors
3. The imprisonment and martyrdom of Jesus’ followers
4. The transformation of Saul
This week, I want to set aside any notions of the Bible having been inspired by God or infallible. I simply wish to review the text as a historical document. In their writings, the New Testament authors clearly speak of Jesus’ life and crucifixion. The accounts are purported to be first-hand accounts of either Jesus or His apostles. To a historian, these writings are a rare treasure. With any historical texts, there are certain subtleties that can help scholars to ascertain whether the documents were legitimate. I’ll examine below a few of the nuances that lead the vast majority of scholars to believe Jesus was real.
The Dates
The gospels and Paul’s letters are a rarity, historically speaking. With regards to the early centuries AD, to find written biographies/accounts within several hundred years of the people/events themselves is to find a veritable gold mine of information. For instance, the earliest broad accounts of titanic historical figures like Alexander the Great and Hannibal were written centuries after the fact. In contrast, even conservative figures place Paul’s letters and the gospel writings within the first century AD (though some believe John was written closer to 110 AD) or within about 70 years of Jesus’ death and a majority of Biblical scholars believe that most of the works were written prior to 70 AD*.
* This dating stems largely from the content of the gospels and the Book of Acts. Many scholars believe that there is a sort of deafening silence in that there is no mention of hugely significant events that would have helped the Christian cause or would have had a great deal of historical significance to Christians, such as the fall of the temple that was prophesized in the Old Testament (c. 70-75 AD) or the death of Paul (c. 65-70 AD). Paul’s letters, of course, cannot have been written after his death c. 65-70AD.
Why are these dates significant? Writing and circulating accounts (or speaking to accounts, for that matter) that could easily be discredited (if untrue) amongst those who would wish to discredit the apostles would have been a serious detriment to the Christian movement. Jesus is purported to have traveled the countryside and to have spoken to numerous crowds. The books mention specific events and specific locations (most any modern Bible will contain a map showing Jesus’ journey based solely from the New Testament writings). Jesus supposedly performs wondrous acts in full view of the public. By all accounts, Jesus’ execution was a very public event. The authors write of an “empty tomb”. Could the gospels or Paul’s letters have been convincing if Jesus never existed or if He was never crucified?
Let’s examine a few quick and easy ways people of Jesus’ time could have nipped that pesky Christian cult in the bud:
Hypothetical Conversation 1
Disciple: Behold! You have heard of the great miracles performed by Jesus. I tell you today that He was crucified but that His tomb is empty! He has risen from the dead!
Person in crowd: Je-who?
Hypothetical Conversation 2
Disciple: Behold! You have heard of the great miracles performed by Jesus. I tell you today that He was crucified but that His tomb is empty! He has risen from the dead!
Executioner: We only kill thieves and criminals. I think I would have remembered executing someone because he claimed to be God. You say he was the subject of abject humiliation? A crown of what? Thorns? I’m sure I would have remembered that! Pilate only ruled here for about 10 years!
Hypothetical Conversation 3
Disciple: Jesus healed the sick and the lame. He brought Lazarus of Bethany back from the dead!
Bethanian: Lazarus of Bethany? I’ve lived in Bethany my whole life. I knew Lazarus and his sisters… Mary and Martha. He died, but I think I would have known if some Jesus fellow came around saying he could reanimate him. Plus, he’s still dead!
Hypothetical Conversation 4
Disciple: Remember that Jesus fed the crowd of thousands with only a few loaves and fishes! He is indeed the Son of God!
Person in crowd: When was this? You’re saying that thousands of people went to some big field to watch a guy perform miracles? I live a kilometer from there. I never saw a huge crowd walking through my grass. Je-who?
Hypothetical Conversation 5: The early disciples recruit the first Christians
Disciple 1: Behold! I tell you that there existed a man named Jesus who was born to a virgin, who roamed the countryside performing miracles, who was crucified, but who arose from the dead three days later! And, I have NINE other guys who can corroborate this story! Yes, that’s right, NINE!
Person in crowd: Where are the nine other guys?
Disciple 2: Some may already be dead and others have spread out throughout the countryside to spread the good news.
Person in crowd: Um, so there’s only two of you here?
Disciples: Yes, but we swear that are NINE others spreading the good news elsewhere; look, I have a letter from one of them!
Person in crowd: I can’t read. So, you say that this Jesus fellow performed miracles in front of thousands of people?
Disciples: Yes!
Person in crowd: Can I talk to one of them?
Disciples: They’re in faraway lands. But you should stop doing all of the things that you’re doing, because you are being sinful.
Person in crowd: I’ve never heard of this Jesus. Did you say that he performed miracles? And, there’s only nine people who will attest to this?
Potential Motivation
If we are to believe that Jesus did not exist at all, there are two possible conclusions that stem from this with regards to the disciples:
Jesus’ disciples thought they were following Jesus for a number of years, but were mistaken. They also thought they saw Him crucified, but were mistaken. Further, they thought they saw Him perform great, mysterious acts (we’re not yet calling them miracles… let’s assume for now that they were just impressive displays), but were mistaken.
Jesus’ disciples were liars.
1. The Delusional Disciples
How can we reasonably assume that there was no Jesus, but that the disciples experienced some sort of mass hallucination complete with false memories never witnessed in any other psychological/sociological experiments? I don’t think we can. The much more reasonable conclusion would be that if Jesus did not exist, the disciples must have simply made it up.
2. The Liars
Could the entirety of Christianity have been a product of 11 conspirators (who obviously offed Judas when he wouldn’t go along)? Let’s discuss.
”Three can keep a secret if two are dead.” - Benjamin Franklin
”The vanity of being known to be trusted with a secret is generally one of the chief motives to disclose it.” - Samuel Johnson
”Nothing weighs on us so heavily as a secret.” – Jean de la Fontaine
I want to start with a simple premise: Liars make poor martyrs.
If Jesus did not exist, Jesus’ followers went to a lot of trouble to prove otherwise. Here you have a group of Jews who would have decided to contrive a false messiah (even though the officials of the Jewish community strongly objected to this messiah), and who would devote their lives to convincing others of this “truth”. Furthermore, they would leave their families and endure beatings, imprisonment, and even upside-down crucifixion rather than utter the real truth….
The much, much more reasonable conclusion is that they believed what they were preaching! They believed that Jesus was the Son of God. And, for this belief to be possible, they must have known Jesus to be a real, historical figure.
Imprisonment and Martyrdom
Something else we can glean from the suffering of the early Christians is that they were enemies of the establishment. Neither the Jewish leaders nor the Romans of the time wished to see the teachings of Jesus perpetuated. Furthermore, the first martyr (Stephen) was killed only a few years after Jesus’ death, so within a very short span of time we can see evidence that the administrators of the time saw Christians as a threat. Saul of Tarsus (later Paul) was, in fact, charged with rounding up the early Christian leaders in attempt to stop the movement prior to what he describes as an encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus.
I spoke above about the ease with which the early Christians could have been discredited, and here we have evidence that it would have been beneficial to the leaders of the time to do so. The Romans and the Jews saw Christians as a threat. So, why not stop the movement at its earliest stages by simply presenting the counter-evidence to Jesus’ existence? The Romans spent a considerable amount of time and resources imprisoning Christians, when it would have been much easier to simply discredit them. If we assume, however, that Jesus did walk the earth and did perform wondrous acts, word of Jesus would have spread (just as the Bible tells us) and Rome would lose all credibility if an attempt was made to deny Jesus’ existence.
The Transformation of Saul
“Lord,” Ananias answered, “I have heard many reports about [Saul] and all the harm he has done to your saints in Jerusalem. And he has come here with authority from the chief priests to arrest all who call on your name.” - Acts 9.
Saul was known to the Christians. Accounts of his mistreatment of the Christians don’t stem solely from his own letters. He was feared by his enemies and lauded by his peers; not only that, but Saul described himself as a “Hebrew of Hebrews”. According to his own testimony, he believed at the time that what he was doing – stopping the actions of those preaching a false messiah – was righteous. So, why stop? Guilt for doling out punishment to Christians? Christians who were converting his fellow Jews to follow a false idol whose very existence could not be confirmed?
Whether you believe Saul encountered Christ on the road to Damascus, there is little doubt that something happened. He went from one of Christianity’s most fearsome opponents to its most cherised proponent in a matter of days. Even if you do believe Paul simply had a change of heart, this doesn’t explain why he would turn to a non-existent Jesus.
SECULAR SOURCES
CORNELIUS TACITUS
c. 110 AD: "The name (Christians) is derived from Christ who the procurator Pontius Pilate had executed in the reign of Tiberius".
FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS
c. 94 AD: "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was the doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those who loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day."
James " the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ"
JUSTIN MARTYR
c 150 AD: Described Jesus’ crucifixion in detail, including reference to Pilate.
LUCIAN OF SAMOSATA
c. 120-180 AD: Jesus "introduce this new cult into the world" and was "crucified in Palestine".
MARA BAR-SERAPION
c. 73 AD – third century: Refers to Jesus as the King of the Jews, stating that they (the Jews) had crucified him.
PLINY THE YOUNGER
c. 61-113 AD: Referred to Christians singing "a hymn to Christ as a god".
SUETONIUS
c. 69-122 AD: Refers to "Chrestus" (another spelling of Christus) in his 'Life of Claudius'.
TERTULLIAN
c. 155-220 AD: "Tiberius accordingly, in those days the Christian name made it's entry into the world, having himself received intelligence from the truth of Christ's divinity, brought the matter before the senate, with his own decision in favour of Christ. The senate, because it had not given the approval itself, rejected his proposal."
In total, there are 10 secular sources (not all shown here) that refer to Christ within the first and second centuries and from these sources, we can piece together the following information:
1. Jesus lived during the time of Tiberius Ceaser.
2. He lived a virtuous life.
3. He was a wonder-worker.
4. He had a brother named James.
5. He was acclaimed to the the messiah.
6. He was crucufied under Pontious Pilate.
7. He was crucified on the eve of the Jewish Passover.
8. Darkness and an earthquaked occurred when he died.
9. His disciples believed he rose from the dead.
10. His disciples were willing to die for their belief.
11. Christianity spread rapidly as far as Rome.
12. His disciples denied the Roman gods and worshipped Jesus as God.
(list taken from Turek/Geisler)
All of these secular accounts line up with the Biblical accounts.
There are few things that John Dominic Crossan and I agree upon, but I’ll use his quote once again to close the same way I opened:
“That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be.”
The more you study religion, the more theories you will inevitably encounter. Although the theory that Jesus never really existed at all is not widely accepted, it has cropped up from time to time (see below), so I want to take this week to reveal the evidence that I have encountered to support the historical Jesus. If there does exist a good deal of latent doubt regarding Jesus’ existence, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to begin an in-depth study of the New Testament until I first establish that Jesus was a real historical figure.
“It is even possible to mount a serious, though not widely supported, historical case that Jesus never lived at all, as has been done by, among others Professor G. A. Wells of the University of London in a number of books, including Did Jesus Exist? Although Jesus probably existed.” - Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion
(Dr. G.A. Wells actually taught German at the University of London, but I’m sure he presents a strong case.)
BIBLICAL EVIDENCE
In a critical examination of the veracity of Biblical text, there is a certain inclination to toss out the writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, et al because there is a lack of objectivity inherent in any persuasive literature (and the New Testament certainly qualifies as such). Such a sentiment is certainly understandable; while there is a great deal of biographical information in the New Testament, the authors are definitely attempting to persuade the reader to regard Jesus’ teachings as truth. There are a few things to be considered, though, before setting aside the most comprehensive sources:
1. The dates of the accounts (and the subsequent implications)
2. The potential motivation of the authors
3. The imprisonment and martyrdom of Jesus’ followers
4. The transformation of Saul
This week, I want to set aside any notions of the Bible having been inspired by God or infallible. I simply wish to review the text as a historical document. In their writings, the New Testament authors clearly speak of Jesus’ life and crucifixion. The accounts are purported to be first-hand accounts of either Jesus or His apostles. To a historian, these writings are a rare treasure. With any historical texts, there are certain subtleties that can help scholars to ascertain whether the documents were legitimate. I’ll examine below a few of the nuances that lead the vast majority of scholars to believe Jesus was real.
The Dates
The gospels and Paul’s letters are a rarity, historically speaking. With regards to the early centuries AD, to find written biographies/accounts within several hundred years of the people/events themselves is to find a veritable gold mine of information. For instance, the earliest broad accounts of titanic historical figures like Alexander the Great and Hannibal were written centuries after the fact. In contrast, even conservative figures place Paul’s letters and the gospel writings within the first century AD (though some believe John was written closer to 110 AD) or within about 70 years of Jesus’ death and a majority of Biblical scholars believe that most of the works were written prior to 70 AD*.
* This dating stems largely from the content of the gospels and the Book of Acts. Many scholars believe that there is a sort of deafening silence in that there is no mention of hugely significant events that would have helped the Christian cause or would have had a great deal of historical significance to Christians, such as the fall of the temple that was prophesized in the Old Testament (c. 70-75 AD) or the death of Paul (c. 65-70 AD). Paul’s letters, of course, cannot have been written after his death c. 65-70AD.
Why are these dates significant? Writing and circulating accounts (or speaking to accounts, for that matter) that could easily be discredited (if untrue) amongst those who would wish to discredit the apostles would have been a serious detriment to the Christian movement. Jesus is purported to have traveled the countryside and to have spoken to numerous crowds. The books mention specific events and specific locations (most any modern Bible will contain a map showing Jesus’ journey based solely from the New Testament writings). Jesus supposedly performs wondrous acts in full view of the public. By all accounts, Jesus’ execution was a very public event. The authors write of an “empty tomb”. Could the gospels or Paul’s letters have been convincing if Jesus never existed or if He was never crucified?
Let’s examine a few quick and easy ways people of Jesus’ time could have nipped that pesky Christian cult in the bud:
Hypothetical Conversation 1
Disciple: Behold! You have heard of the great miracles performed by Jesus. I tell you today that He was crucified but that His tomb is empty! He has risen from the dead!
Person in crowd: Je-who?
Hypothetical Conversation 2
Disciple: Behold! You have heard of the great miracles performed by Jesus. I tell you today that He was crucified but that His tomb is empty! He has risen from the dead!
Executioner: We only kill thieves and criminals. I think I would have remembered executing someone because he claimed to be God. You say he was the subject of abject humiliation? A crown of what? Thorns? I’m sure I would have remembered that! Pilate only ruled here for about 10 years!
Hypothetical Conversation 3
Disciple: Jesus healed the sick and the lame. He brought Lazarus of Bethany back from the dead!
Bethanian: Lazarus of Bethany? I’ve lived in Bethany my whole life. I knew Lazarus and his sisters… Mary and Martha. He died, but I think I would have known if some Jesus fellow came around saying he could reanimate him. Plus, he’s still dead!
Hypothetical Conversation 4
Disciple: Remember that Jesus fed the crowd of thousands with only a few loaves and fishes! He is indeed the Son of God!
Person in crowd: When was this? You’re saying that thousands of people went to some big field to watch a guy perform miracles? I live a kilometer from there. I never saw a huge crowd walking through my grass. Je-who?
Hypothetical Conversation 5: The early disciples recruit the first Christians
Disciple 1: Behold! I tell you that there existed a man named Jesus who was born to a virgin, who roamed the countryside performing miracles, who was crucified, but who arose from the dead three days later! And, I have NINE other guys who can corroborate this story! Yes, that’s right, NINE!
Person in crowd: Where are the nine other guys?
Disciple 2: Some may already be dead and others have spread out throughout the countryside to spread the good news.
Person in crowd: Um, so there’s only two of you here?
Disciples: Yes, but we swear that are NINE others spreading the good news elsewhere; look, I have a letter from one of them!
Person in crowd: I can’t read. So, you say that this Jesus fellow performed miracles in front of thousands of people?
Disciples: Yes!
Person in crowd: Can I talk to one of them?
Disciples: They’re in faraway lands. But you should stop doing all of the things that you’re doing, because you are being sinful.
Person in crowd: I’ve never heard of this Jesus. Did you say that he performed miracles? And, there’s only nine people who will attest to this?
Potential Motivation
If we are to believe that Jesus did not exist at all, there are two possible conclusions that stem from this with regards to the disciples:
Jesus’ disciples thought they were following Jesus for a number of years, but were mistaken. They also thought they saw Him crucified, but were mistaken. Further, they thought they saw Him perform great, mysterious acts (we’re not yet calling them miracles… let’s assume for now that they were just impressive displays), but were mistaken.
Jesus’ disciples were liars.
1. The Delusional Disciples
How can we reasonably assume that there was no Jesus, but that the disciples experienced some sort of mass hallucination complete with false memories never witnessed in any other psychological/sociological experiments? I don’t think we can. The much more reasonable conclusion would be that if Jesus did not exist, the disciples must have simply made it up.
2. The Liars
Could the entirety of Christianity have been a product of 11 conspirators (who obviously offed Judas when he wouldn’t go along)? Let’s discuss.
”Three can keep a secret if two are dead.” - Benjamin Franklin
”The vanity of being known to be trusted with a secret is generally one of the chief motives to disclose it.” - Samuel Johnson
”Nothing weighs on us so heavily as a secret.” – Jean de la Fontaine
I want to start with a simple premise: Liars make poor martyrs.
If Jesus did not exist, Jesus’ followers went to a lot of trouble to prove otherwise. Here you have a group of Jews who would have decided to contrive a false messiah (even though the officials of the Jewish community strongly objected to this messiah), and who would devote their lives to convincing others of this “truth”. Furthermore, they would leave their families and endure beatings, imprisonment, and even upside-down crucifixion rather than utter the real truth….
The much, much more reasonable conclusion is that they believed what they were preaching! They believed that Jesus was the Son of God. And, for this belief to be possible, they must have known Jesus to be a real, historical figure.
Imprisonment and Martyrdom
Something else we can glean from the suffering of the early Christians is that they were enemies of the establishment. Neither the Jewish leaders nor the Romans of the time wished to see the teachings of Jesus perpetuated. Furthermore, the first martyr (Stephen) was killed only a few years after Jesus’ death, so within a very short span of time we can see evidence that the administrators of the time saw Christians as a threat. Saul of Tarsus (later Paul) was, in fact, charged with rounding up the early Christian leaders in attempt to stop the movement prior to what he describes as an encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus.
I spoke above about the ease with which the early Christians could have been discredited, and here we have evidence that it would have been beneficial to the leaders of the time to do so. The Romans and the Jews saw Christians as a threat. So, why not stop the movement at its earliest stages by simply presenting the counter-evidence to Jesus’ existence? The Romans spent a considerable amount of time and resources imprisoning Christians, when it would have been much easier to simply discredit them. If we assume, however, that Jesus did walk the earth and did perform wondrous acts, word of Jesus would have spread (just as the Bible tells us) and Rome would lose all credibility if an attempt was made to deny Jesus’ existence.
The Transformation of Saul
“Lord,” Ananias answered, “I have heard many reports about [Saul] and all the harm he has done to your saints in Jerusalem. And he has come here with authority from the chief priests to arrest all who call on your name.” - Acts 9.
Saul was known to the Christians. Accounts of his mistreatment of the Christians don’t stem solely from his own letters. He was feared by his enemies and lauded by his peers; not only that, but Saul described himself as a “Hebrew of Hebrews”. According to his own testimony, he believed at the time that what he was doing – stopping the actions of those preaching a false messiah – was righteous. So, why stop? Guilt for doling out punishment to Christians? Christians who were converting his fellow Jews to follow a false idol whose very existence could not be confirmed?
Whether you believe Saul encountered Christ on the road to Damascus, there is little doubt that something happened. He went from one of Christianity’s most fearsome opponents to its most cherised proponent in a matter of days. Even if you do believe Paul simply had a change of heart, this doesn’t explain why he would turn to a non-existent Jesus.
SECULAR SOURCES
CORNELIUS TACITUS
c. 110 AD: "The name (Christians) is derived from Christ who the procurator Pontius Pilate had executed in the reign of Tiberius".
FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS
c. 94 AD: "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was the doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those who loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day."
James " the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ"
JUSTIN MARTYR
c 150 AD: Described Jesus’ crucifixion in detail, including reference to Pilate.
LUCIAN OF SAMOSATA
c. 120-180 AD: Jesus "introduce this new cult into the world" and was "crucified in Palestine".
MARA BAR-SERAPION
c. 73 AD – third century: Refers to Jesus as the King of the Jews, stating that they (the Jews) had crucified him.
PLINY THE YOUNGER
c. 61-113 AD: Referred to Christians singing "a hymn to Christ as a god".
SUETONIUS
c. 69-122 AD: Refers to "Chrestus" (another spelling of Christus) in his 'Life of Claudius'.
TERTULLIAN
c. 155-220 AD: "Tiberius accordingly, in those days the Christian name made it's entry into the world, having himself received intelligence from the truth of Christ's divinity, brought the matter before the senate, with his own decision in favour of Christ. The senate, because it had not given the approval itself, rejected his proposal."
In total, there are 10 secular sources (not all shown here) that refer to Christ within the first and second centuries and from these sources, we can piece together the following information:
1. Jesus lived during the time of Tiberius Ceaser.
2. He lived a virtuous life.
3. He was a wonder-worker.
4. He had a brother named James.
5. He was acclaimed to the the messiah.
6. He was crucufied under Pontious Pilate.
7. He was crucified on the eve of the Jewish Passover.
8. Darkness and an earthquaked occurred when he died.
9. His disciples believed he rose from the dead.
10. His disciples were willing to die for their belief.
11. Christianity spread rapidly as far as Rome.
12. His disciples denied the Roman gods and worshipped Jesus as God.
(list taken from Turek/Geisler)
All of these secular accounts line up with the Biblical accounts.
There are few things that John Dominic Crossan and I agree upon, but I’ll use his quote once again to close the same way I opened:
“That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be.”
Saturday, April 25, 2009
I Can't Believe I Read the Whole Thing (Week15)
Why should Christians study the whole Bible?
One post into Genesis, it is clear that the Old Testament presents difficulties. I would wager that many Christians have devoted time to studying the New Testament without ever studying the Old for a great many reasons:
- A feeling that the New Testament contains all of the information necessary to understanding Christ
- Difficulty with Old Testament language
- A desire to remain ignorant of the challenges presented by the Old Testament
- Doubts about the veracity of Old Testament writings
It is Written
I noted in week 13 that Jesus made numerous references to Scripture. When reading the New Testament, it is important to understand that Jesus Himself was a scholar of the Scripture. From a Christian viewpoint, the primary reason for believing the Scripture to be true is that Jesus confirmed Scriptural writings throughout His time on Earth. Over the next several weeks, I’ll explore a back-and-forth study of the Bible, using the evidence of the actual historical Jesus and that of His miracles as evidence for the sincerity and authenticity of His spoken words.
My primary focus will be on those specific people and places Jesus mentions as recorded throughout the gospels:
Abel
Abiathar
Abraham
Daniel
David
Elijah
Elisha
Gomorrah
Isaac
Jacob
Jonah
Lot
Moses
Naaman
Noah
Sodom
Solomon
Zarephath
Zechariah
There is a reciprocal relationship between the words of Jesus and the text of the Old Testament. If historical and archeological evidence points to a real historical figure who performed real miracles and was really raised from death, His references to Scripture must be considered evidence for the veracity of the Scripture. If Jesus of Nazareth claimed to be the Son of God and claimed that Scripture was the Word of God, we should expect the Scripture to be accurate and plausible. Evidence to the contrary would be evidence against Jesus as the Son of God. So, it is important in the weeks to come that we study not only the New Testament, but also the source document by which Christ Himself lived His life.
I want to apologize for taking a break from the Biblical text so quickly after Genesis 1. Genesis gives rather clearly the Biblical view of Creation and makes the connection between Big Bang and the Judeo-Christian concept of the beginning of the universe. I think, though, that it will be important to view the New Testament and the evidence for Jesus before returning to the Old Testament text, and I did not want to do so without a short intro. I’ll return to the Scripture next week and I promise there will not be another break for quite some time.
One post into Genesis, it is clear that the Old Testament presents difficulties. I would wager that many Christians have devoted time to studying the New Testament without ever studying the Old for a great many reasons:
- A feeling that the New Testament contains all of the information necessary to understanding Christ
- Difficulty with Old Testament language
- A desire to remain ignorant of the challenges presented by the Old Testament
- Doubts about the veracity of Old Testament writings
It is Written
I noted in week 13 that Jesus made numerous references to Scripture. When reading the New Testament, it is important to understand that Jesus Himself was a scholar of the Scripture. From a Christian viewpoint, the primary reason for believing the Scripture to be true is that Jesus confirmed Scriptural writings throughout His time on Earth. Over the next several weeks, I’ll explore a back-and-forth study of the Bible, using the evidence of the actual historical Jesus and that of His miracles as evidence for the sincerity and authenticity of His spoken words.
My primary focus will be on those specific people and places Jesus mentions as recorded throughout the gospels:
Abel
Abiathar
Abraham
Daniel
David
Elijah
Elisha
Gomorrah
Isaac
Jacob
Jonah
Lot
Moses
Naaman
Noah
Sodom
Solomon
Zarephath
Zechariah
There is a reciprocal relationship between the words of Jesus and the text of the Old Testament. If historical and archeological evidence points to a real historical figure who performed real miracles and was really raised from death, His references to Scripture must be considered evidence for the veracity of the Scripture. If Jesus of Nazareth claimed to be the Son of God and claimed that Scripture was the Word of God, we should expect the Scripture to be accurate and plausible. Evidence to the contrary would be evidence against Jesus as the Son of God. So, it is important in the weeks to come that we study not only the New Testament, but also the source document by which Christ Himself lived His life.
I want to apologize for taking a break from the Biblical text so quickly after Genesis 1. Genesis gives rather clearly the Biblical view of Creation and makes the connection between Big Bang and the Judeo-Christian concept of the beginning of the universe. I think, though, that it will be important to view the New Testament and the evidence for Jesus before returning to the Old Testament text, and I did not want to do so without a short intro. I’ll return to the Scripture next week and I promise there will not be another break for quite some time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
