First of all, forget harmonizing the entire text. I'm talking about reconstructing the Gospels' events into historical sequence. Succinctly, here's how that can be reasonably done.
If we posit two Nazareth homecomings and two fishermen callings, the sequence of major events in Mark and Luke suddenly finds complete harmony, even if minor details continue to diverge. Matthew's sequence differs only between chapters 5 and 13. After John the Baptist's beheading, Matthew's narrative sequence shows no contradictions with Mark and Luke. If we also posit two Temple cleansings, the sequence in John's Gospel also blends perfectly with the rest. (**There are other ways around this little problem, but for time's sake, at the moment, we begin by simply assuming those three points.** Update: see my response to Tim's question in the comments.**) So stipulated, we begin.
The first event to harmonize is Jesus feeding the 5,000. This dates JTB's beheading to the middle Passover of John's Gospel. The first Passover of John's Gospel comes just before JTB's arrest. Jesus left Judea when he heard about that arrest, and that the Pharisees were now more concerned about Jesus than about John. This brings us to a critical point of consideration.
Herod Antipas probably captured the Baptist somewhere in the Transjordan region, which Antipas controlled. Why, then, did Jesus leave JUDEA when he heard about this arrest? The only possible danger for Jesus was if he suspected the Sanhedrin might begin to consider arresting him for extradition to Galilee. At this point, it seems, the Pharisees just wanted Jesus to go back to 'Hicksville'. Wisely, he obliged their desire before they could hatch any plans.
For all of John's imprisonment, Jesus stays in Galilee (except briefly, in Jn.5). After Herod Antipas notices Jesus, the Lord withdraws from Galilee repeatedly, slipping into every neighboring country at some point except in the direction of Judea. After some period of these 'withdrawals' had passed, Jesus made plans to go back south. What had changed? The Pharisees would still want to extradite Jesus back to Antipas, and now the Tetrarch was actually looking for him! Why was it suddenly safe?
Sejanus must have died. Antipas must have had some kind of agreement with Sejanus for the Tetrarch to divorce his Arabian wife, effectively ending the treaty with King Aretas and jeopardizing peace in the region while Tiberius entered his 70's. Herod Antipas would not have risked everything for Herodias, unless he really did have a deal with Sejanus. So the caution Antipas [and Pilate also] displayed at Jesus' trial really must have been because of the climate in Rome. Heads of Sejanus' old allies were still rolling with the slightest provocation.
The point at the moment is that Antipas' caution did not begin at Jesus' trial in early 33. Antipas' caution began at Sejanus' death in late 31. Therefore, if the period of Jesus' withdrawals reflects a time after John's death when Judea was still unsafe to enter, then John must have died before Passover of 31. That makes the second 'half' of Jesus' ministry two years long. The missing Passover of 32 is most likely locatable around the time of the Temple Tax (Matthew's coin in-the-fish episode).
Incidentally, Jesus' visit to Tabernacles and Hanukkah could arguably go in 32 because that was after Sejanus had died, but 31 is not impossible, because Tiberius spread rumors all year long in 31 that Sejanus' life could be in danger. If Antipas got wind of what was coming, the Father - yes, we're getting spiritual now - could have told Jesus it was safe. That is a valid spiritual-historical consideration, especially if we take the word "sent" in its most immediate sense (Jn. 8:16, 18, 26, 29, 42; in contrast, Jn.10:36, "sent into the world", reads very differently.) The dubious level of safety could partly explain why the disciples do not join Jesus on this trip. However, it remains less than perfectly clear at the moment whether John 7-10 could belong in 31 or 32. The earlier date fits better with the overall structure of events and even with the development of Jesus' public discourse, but it requires Jesus to have special confidence that he would remain safe. However, this does fall several months into his period of withdrawals, and on the balance of all considerations the timing does seem to work. Cautiously, then, we should prefer 31 for these two months in Judea.
The last major question is whether John's imprisonment lasted the better part of one year, or two. The sabbath grain plucking incident occurs well in the middle of John's imprisonment in all three Synoptic Gospels. The fact that grain was ripe points to another missing Passover. Therefore, the first Passover mentioned in John's Gospel belongs in 29 AD, and the sabbath grain plucking must have occurred in 30. (Incidentally, the "harvest" Jesus mentioned in Samaria must have been the fall harvest. His reference to "white fields" was merely a mixed metaphor - not so uncommon for him, really!)
We now see a total of five Passovers - 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33 AD. Jesus' ministry in-between those Passovers was four years long. John was in prison for most of the first two years, and Sejanus died in the third autumn. This completely aligns most of the historical landscape for Gospel events. The rest falls into place very quickly.
One other incidental issue, first, is to consider that the death of the Empress Livia in 29 (most likely late winter in early 29) could have called Herod Antipas out of the country to pay his respects in Rome (and most likely also to firm up his relations, whatever they were, with Sejanus, because Livia's death was the start of the Prefect's big power play, and that fact was apparently obvious to everyone but Tiberius at the time). In any event, if Antipas did leave for Rome in 29 it would explain perfectly why Jesus gained fame all over Palestine without Herod noticing, and why the Pharisees went "to the Herodians" in Mark 3:6 instead of "to Herod". (That Antipas was in Rome has been suggested before, but considered implausible because there was no cause for the trip in 30 AD, in Hoehner's chronology.)
Our final task here is to work backwards from the first Passover. We need to account for at least 40 days after the Lord's baptism, plus some recovery time after such an ordeal, plus even more. There had to be some travel time - another trip to and from Transjordan and then to Cana and Capernaum - all before the Passover of 29 AD.
Regarding John's ministry, Luke tells us that "all the people were baptized" before Jesus came to be baptized. Of course we assume Luke means all the ones who-were-going-to-be-baptized, and obviously not every solitary soul in the land, but his phrase still suggests that everyone in Israel had a chance to hear about John that year, and to go to him. Because the 15th year of Tiberius can plausibly refer to all of 28 AD (by more than one method of reckoning, and we must admit we have no way to know which method Luke 'should' have preferred), it seems likely that John preached and baptized through all three festival seasons of that year.
Altogether, this means Jesus most likely came to be baptized around the turn of October in 28 AD. His wilderness trial filled out the rest of 28, leaving three months for recovery, recruiting, moving his family to Capernaum, and final personal preparation before his first public Passover, at which he essentially declared himself the Messiah by cleansing the Temple.
That concludes the entire skeleton of what I contend must be the one, most likely, most plausible reconstruction of the Gospels' events, in chronological order and with full historical context.
================================
Event Synopsis/Timeline:
28 AD - In the fifteenth year of Tiberius' rule, John the Baptist begins his ministry in the wilderness. John baptizes all spring and summer, preparing the way for Jesus. In Autumn, Jesus comes to be baptized. He is 33 years old. (Luke says "about" 30.) Jesus spends the first half of winter alone, fasting and being temped in the wilderness.
29 AD - Jesus recovers from his testing at home in Nazareth. John begins baptizing again in early Spring. Jesus’ disciples begin to follow him. Passover: Jesus visits Jerusalem and clears the temple. Herod Antipas divorces his Nabatean wife (the daughter of King Aretes). John the Baptist is imprisoned by Herod for criticizing the divorce. Herod (possibly) sails for Rome after hearing of Livia's death. Jesus and his disciples flee Judea after John's arrest. Briefly, they visit Samaria on their way back to Galilee. Peter and Jesus' disciples go back to normal life after their trip, as anyone would. Jesus calls the fishermen the first time and invites Peter to go to other towns, but Peter stays in Bethsaida. Jesus travels alone the rest of the year, and rests for some time during winter.
30 AD - Spring: Jesus calls the fishermen the second time and they begin follow him. Jesus calls Matthew. The disciples pick grain on a sabbath. Jesus officially selects his twelve apostles, some weeks before Passover. They travel all over Galilee together, living on fishing profits and free heads of grain. Jesus' fame spreads far and wide. Soon, a few wealthy women begin to travel with the group, providing for their needs financially. Jesus stays in Galilee all year - he does not go down to Judea. Before autumn, Jesus takes his disciples along on his second Nazareth homecoming. As the fall harvest approaches, Jesus sends his disciples out in pairs to many cities. Herod Antipas (possibly) sails back from Rome by October. Again, Jesus appears to be less active during the winter. He is probably resting.
31 AD - Herod Antipas has John the Baptist beheaded sometime before Passover. Shortly after, Herod realizes the reports he's been catching up on are about Jesus, not old news about John. Herd begins trying to see Jesus. Jesus' disciples, having traveled through the winter, find Jesus in some town (Tiberias or Capernaum?) just before Passover. Jesus feeds the 5,000. The people in Judea hail John as a martyr, and condemn Herod for his death. In Autumn, Jesus finally visits Jerusalem again, and stays through December. In October, Sejanus is finally killed, in Rome. This news is confirmed in all Palestine some weeks later. Antipas and Pilate begin ruling with additional caution. Jesus remains safe in Judea for two months, from mid-October to mid-December. He does not seem to rest much this particular winter.
32 AD - Jesus travels up towards Syria, near Tyre and Sidon. On their journey, Jesus begins preparing his disciples for his death. Peter confesses that Jesus is the Messiah. Jesus is transfigured on a mountain with Moses and Elijah. Around Passover time, Peter obligates Jesus to paying the Temple-Tax. After Passover, Jesus leaves Galilee and begins a year-long tour around Judea. They visit at least 35 cities all over Judea. Jesus repeats teachings in Judea which he'd been giving in Galilee since two and three years ago. Jesus and his disciples find a second home in Bethany, with their friends Lazarus, Martha and Mary. Three things prevent the Jews from laying hands on Jesus all year long: He keeps avoiding Jerusalem, the people are still upset about John's martyrdom, and Herod Antipas refuses to allow extradition. Because of the current political climate, Antipas cannot risk causing more unrest in his kingdom/tetrarchy.
33 AD - Jesus has become so popular the Jews have no choice but to plot against him. At what is only the second Jerusalem Passover of his five Passovers in public activity, Jesus cleanses the Temple again. The Pharisees and Herodians try to trap him with a coin, but the Sadducees finally have to strong arm Pontius Pilate into using Rome's garrison to arrest Jesus. Jesus is tried, crucified, buried and ascends. Then he appears to the disciples and gives them the Holy Spirit... and THAT is only the beginning of the next chapter in Jesus' Story!
Bill Heroman, Amateur Academic
Showing posts with label Matthew. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Matthew. Show all posts
November 12, 2009
November 08, 2009
Foundations for 'Gospel Chronology'
According to John's Gospel, there were at least three Passovers during Jesus' ministry. We should not assume there were only three. All four Gospels report on Jesus' last Passover. Other major events in all four accounts include Jesus' Baptism, John the Baptist's arrest, the Baptist's beheading, and the feeding of the 5,000.
The Baptist's arrest comes shortly after Jesus' first public Passover. The beheading is reported just before he feeds the 5,000, which corresponds with the middle Passover of the fourth Gospel. Events before and after that Passover differ dramatically. John's death changed things for Jesus in major ways.
No two Gospel writers report the same Episode (events, not pericopes) in two different 'halves' of Jesus' ministry. Events sequenced differently by Matthew or Luke as compared with Mark occur exclusively in the period before John's death, in all three Synoptic Gospels. Events from John's death through Palm Sunday never differ in sequence among the Synoptics.
Chronologies of the Gospels basically differ in how they treat the two 'halves' of Jesus' ministry. Restricted by a few key dates, events from the Baptism to John's death must cover either one or two years, plus a few months. Likewise, events from John's death to Palm Sunday span either two or three total Passover (thus covering precisely one or two years). Chronologists of the Gospels normally disagree most in how they 'read' the 'clues' to arrive at a two, three or four year conclusion.
However, to combine a high view of scripture with a historical view of scripture's reported events, there are better ways to proceed than by exegesis alone.
Chronological study does not depend exclusively on chronological indicators found in a text. Travel time, Sabbath days, the festival schedule, contemporary historical events, and natural logistical limitations all come into play. Events themselves require significant amounts of time in which to occur. Additional space to allow for non-recorded events also must be considered. By any historical analysis (assuming reliability of information), the testimony of the Gospels contains less than everything that happened, but more than enough to reconstruct one plausible timeline of events which best accounts for all the evidence.
The two year chronology of Jesus' public ministry is positivist minimalism that requires the Lord to move constantly at a breakneck pace for most of that 24 months. It also speeds up political developments and the spread of news across various regions. Such a timeline is unrealistic because of the sheer amount of travel and activity accounted for in the Gospels as a whole, not to mention the intense personal, interpersonal and psychological needs and concerns of the major players. Furthermore, such efficiency with the data is not generally the outcome of a properly historical analysis.
We must remember, it is at least as likely that John has left out one or two Passovers. For this reason, the most thorough chronological studies of the Gospels usually posit three or four years for Jesus' ministry, from the Lord's first public Passover to his last. The question of that final difference (3 or 4 years) depends on events between John's death and Palm Sunday. We may or may not have arguable clues in Matthew's two-drachma tax and the parable of the fig tree's mercy year (see Cheney). Far better than 'clues', however, is history itself.
The 3 year view is more popular because it's traditional arguments include entrenched apologetic defenses for inerrancy. However, the 4 year view is more likely, for two reasons. First, both halves of Jesus' ministry fit better in two years than in one. Second, Roman History shows the overall sequence of events fits better from 29 to 33 than it does from 30 to 33. (By the way, none of it fits before 30 AD, although many neglect fleshing things out well enough to realize this.)
In the final analysis, it is the reconstructed chronology itself that elucidates the disputable 'clues' in the Gospels and reveals far more chronological reliability to each Gospel Testimony than could ever be fairly granted by an analysis of their own 'plain sense' alone.
There are several posts on this site supporting the four year chronology of Jesus' ministry.
There will be - no doubt - many more to come.
The Baptist's arrest comes shortly after Jesus' first public Passover. The beheading is reported just before he feeds the 5,000, which corresponds with the middle Passover of the fourth Gospel. Events before and after that Passover differ dramatically. John's death changed things for Jesus in major ways.
No two Gospel writers report the same Episode (events, not pericopes) in two different 'halves' of Jesus' ministry. Events sequenced differently by Matthew or Luke as compared with Mark occur exclusively in the period before John's death, in all three Synoptic Gospels. Events from John's death through Palm Sunday never differ in sequence among the Synoptics.
Chronologies of the Gospels basically differ in how they treat the two 'halves' of Jesus' ministry. Restricted by a few key dates, events from the Baptism to John's death must cover either one or two years, plus a few months. Likewise, events from John's death to Palm Sunday span either two or three total Passover (thus covering precisely one or two years). Chronologists of the Gospels normally disagree most in how they 'read' the 'clues' to arrive at a two, three or four year conclusion.
However, to combine a high view of scripture with a historical view of scripture's reported events, there are better ways to proceed than by exegesis alone.
Chronological study does not depend exclusively on chronological indicators found in a text. Travel time, Sabbath days, the festival schedule, contemporary historical events, and natural logistical limitations all come into play. Events themselves require significant amounts of time in which to occur. Additional space to allow for non-recorded events also must be considered. By any historical analysis (assuming reliability of information), the testimony of the Gospels contains less than everything that happened, but more than enough to reconstruct one plausible timeline of events which best accounts for all the evidence.
The two year chronology of Jesus' public ministry is positivist minimalism that requires the Lord to move constantly at a breakneck pace for most of that 24 months. It also speeds up political developments and the spread of news across various regions. Such a timeline is unrealistic because of the sheer amount of travel and activity accounted for in the Gospels as a whole, not to mention the intense personal, interpersonal and psychological needs and concerns of the major players. Furthermore, such efficiency with the data is not generally the outcome of a properly historical analysis.
We must remember, it is at least as likely that John has left out one or two Passovers. For this reason, the most thorough chronological studies of the Gospels usually posit three or four years for Jesus' ministry, from the Lord's first public Passover to his last. The question of that final difference (3 or 4 years) depends on events between John's death and Palm Sunday. We may or may not have arguable clues in Matthew's two-drachma tax and the parable of the fig tree's mercy year (see Cheney). Far better than 'clues', however, is history itself.
The 3 year view is more popular because it's traditional arguments include entrenched apologetic defenses for inerrancy. However, the 4 year view is more likely, for two reasons. First, both halves of Jesus' ministry fit better in two years than in one. Second, Roman History shows the overall sequence of events fits better from 29 to 33 than it does from 30 to 33. (By the way, none of it fits before 30 AD, although many neglect fleshing things out well enough to realize this.)
In the final analysis, it is the reconstructed chronology itself that elucidates the disputable 'clues' in the Gospels and reveals far more chronological reliability to each Gospel Testimony than could ever be fairly granted by an analysis of their own 'plain sense' alone.
There are several posts on this site supporting the four year chronology of Jesus' ministry.
There will be - no doubt - many more to come.
October 20, 2009
FAVOR, not "grace"
Luke & Paul love to use the noun charis. Matthew & Mark never did. John's Gospel only uses the word four times, all in one paragraph. I'm pretty sure John had read Paul, and probably also Luke - AND I believe God inspired and spoke through each writer - BUT that doesn't mean we should come into John with a highly conceptualized synopsis of Paul's "thought" on charis. For starters, at least, we ought to come in linguistically fresh. For that matter, Paul didn't necessarily think like theologians think he thought, either...
In pagan, heathen Greek, the word charis means FAVOR. It's a good, simple ancient concept that basically means someone is pleased with somebody else. The person doling out FAVOR is usually an important somebody, or else their FAVOR wouldn't be worth discussing. By the way, "merit" or "unmerit" often has nothing to do with it. Xerxes was pleased with a dinner. Herod was pleased with a dance. That's not merit, that's just royal preference. Esther and Salome did one pleasing thing, one time. No points. No credit account. Just likability.
In the ancient world, you can earn favor by doing one good thing, or by doing many things OR just because somebody likes you. However, to earn ROYAL FAVOR you generally have to be "in" to begin with. That's why New Testament "Grace" is so amazing. It's not something we could never have earned. It's something we could never have gotten, at all, anyway. Period. Peons don't get the chance to present themselves before Kings, much less manage to prove themselves royally likable.
Re-read Luke and Paul with this understanding - substitute FAVOR for "grace". The difference is often astounding (not to mention inspiring). Instead of a conceptual principle God himself must adhere to, you get something that is inherently relational, something saturated by the personal pleasure of God. God's FAVOR is now upon believers, sometimes also upon our endeavors. Not that we pleased Him ourselves, of course. Christ did. On which point, now we can go back to John.
Wait. First let's do one other thing. For a functional understanding, let's define the Law, all the Hebrew laws, God's commandments, as things that God wanted people to do. If people fulfill God's commands, that would please Him, would it not? Therefore, practically speaking, we may define the Law as the Hebrew way of earning God's FAVOR. [or at least trying to]
In pagan, heathen Greek, the word charis means FAVOR. It's a good, simple ancient concept that basically means someone is pleased with somebody else. The person doling out FAVOR is usually an important somebody, or else their FAVOR wouldn't be worth discussing. By the way, "merit" or "unmerit" often has nothing to do with it. Xerxes was pleased with a dinner. Herod was pleased with a dance. That's not merit, that's just royal preference. Esther and Salome did one pleasing thing, one time. No points. No credit account. Just likability.
In the ancient world, you can earn favor by doing one good thing, or by doing many things OR just because somebody likes you. However, to earn ROYAL FAVOR you generally have to be "in" to begin with. That's why New Testament "Grace" is so amazing. It's not something we could never have earned. It's something we could never have gotten, at all, anyway. Period. Peons don't get the chance to present themselves before Kings, much less manage to prove themselves royally likable.
Re-read Luke and Paul with this understanding - substitute FAVOR for "grace". The difference is often astounding (not to mention inspiring). Instead of a conceptual principle God himself must adhere to, you get something that is inherently relational, something saturated by the personal pleasure of God. God's FAVOR is now upon believers, sometimes also upon our endeavors. Not that we pleased Him ourselves, of course. Christ did. On which point, now we can go back to John.
Wait. First let's do one other thing. For a functional understanding, let's define the Law, all the Hebrew laws, God's commandments, as things that God wanted people to do. If people fulfill God's commands, that would please Him, would it not? Therefore, practically speaking, we may define the Law as the Hebrew way of earning God's FAVOR. [or at least trying to]
Okay. Now, re-read John 1:14-17 with FAVOR instead of "grace". Instead of the oft quoted caricature of "grace" and "law" as polar opposites, we see John summing up all of History, from pre-existence through Israel's heritage until Christ. There may still be a subtext of conflict, if some of John's readers were still too tightly bound to the Law, but in John's actual piece, Moses and Jesus are presented as a progressive dynamic of God's contract with Man.
God gave Moses the Law. [Understood: Christ fulfilled the Law, which pleased God. Therefore, God's] FAVOR came through Jesus Christ.
Moses ==> Law ==> Christ ==> Charis
I don't know if this is a totally new reading of John, but I do think it blows away the theological insertion of "unmerited". If my reading between the lines here is correct, then God's favor was hardly unmerited. Jesus earned it.
October 11, 2009
Envisioning Nazareth - from Matt.6
This inversion of Matthew's sixth chapter is more creative than careful, but it's an exploration. The Lord's teachings must reflect his own past life somehow. Therefore, here is one possible sketch of what Matthew's Testimony might actually imply.
In Nazareth, Jesus practiced righteousness but not so that anyone would notice. He cared much more about pleasing his Father in Heaven. Jesus gave to the poor, but he did it in secret. Jesus sometimes closed himself in his room when he prayed. He didn't use lots of words or repeat words meaninglessly. Jesus prayed for the sake of his Heavenly Father. God's name was sacred to Jesus. He prayed for God to take charge on Earth. Jesus prayed that people would be content with God's forgiveness and do what God wanted, forgiving each other. Jesus prayed for God to lead Him. Jesus followed his Father. Jesus focused on God and avoided all evil. Prayer helped a lot.
In Nazareth, Jesus forgave those who wronged him, because he knew forgiveness was pleasing to God. Jesus fasted sometimes, and kept himself looking healthy while fasting, so that no one around town would know he was fasting. The Heavenly Father saw Jesus' secret devotions and rewarded Him with Heavenly blessings. God's Life increased in Jesus to even greater abundance. God's Spirit grew inside Jesus to fill Him even more fully. So Jesus' reward for pleasing the Father was that the Father gave Jesus more of Himself.
Jesus stored up these treasures in God's Heavenly realm, and Jesus valued his treasure far more than anything he knew could be stolen or destroyed. Jesus' treasure was the light and glory of God in Heaven, and Jesus' heart was fixed fully on Him. Jesus looked at birds finding food on the ground, and he thought about God. Jesus saw flowers growing in a field, and he thought about God. That is how focused He was.
Jesus kept himself focused on God and so his whole body was filled with God's light. Therefore, he did not really worry about his life or his health, about having enough for his family to eat and drink. He worked hard every day as a carpenter, to earn these things, but he did not worry about the results. Jesus knew everything in his life was centered and dependent upon his heavenly Father. So when Jesus helped Joseph earn the family's daily bread, he thanked God for every ounce of their provisions.
Jesus did everything he did from a desire to do what God wanted and what God thought was right. It was so clear to him that when he turned around and looked at certain people in Nazareth, Jesus could tell they were not seeking God.
In Nazareth, Jesus saw people doing good works in a showy way, in the streets and the Synagogue, just to get the approval of people in town. He saw hypocrites stand up and pray in the Nazareth Synagogue and pray out loud in words they wanted everyone to hear. He saw people refuse to forgive one another, and they carried those grudges for years. Sometimes Jesus saw people fasting, and everyone could tell they were fasting because they tried hard to look hungry and weak. Jesus saw people approve of those people. He saw them getting their social rewards. But he did not see them trying to please God.
In Nazareth, Jesus saw people storing up earthly treasures like expensive clothes and decorative metals. But he knew moths would eat the clothes and the metals would tarnish and decay. Jesus also could see that rich people got robbed more often. Jesus thought about these people and concluded their eyes were bad. Since they did not look at God's light, their body was full of darkness. They worried all the time about food and wine, health and clothing. They spent all their energy sowing and reaping to feed themselves, and they did not honor God as the true provider of all the food they had gathered. They wore out their clothes and worried about replacing them. They did not even have enough faith to believe God would provide them with new clothes when their old ones wore out.
Jesus must have seen people in his hometown who feared God, but he also saw many who failed to live life with a mind to please Him in these areas. Still, somehow, Jesus kept his opinions a secret, along with his devotion to God.
The Lord waited for decades to share what these observations with anyone else. Until then, Jesus continued growing in favor with the people of Nazareth despite his great difference from them. Most amazing of all, at the very same time he was being gracious to them, Jesus was also growing in favor with God.
In Nazareth, Jesus practiced righteousness but not so that anyone would notice. He cared much more about pleasing his Father in Heaven. Jesus gave to the poor, but he did it in secret. Jesus sometimes closed himself in his room when he prayed. He didn't use lots of words or repeat words meaninglessly. Jesus prayed for the sake of his Heavenly Father. God's name was sacred to Jesus. He prayed for God to take charge on Earth. Jesus prayed that people would be content with God's forgiveness and do what God wanted, forgiving each other. Jesus prayed for God to lead Him. Jesus followed his Father. Jesus focused on God and avoided all evil. Prayer helped a lot.
In Nazareth, Jesus forgave those who wronged him, because he knew forgiveness was pleasing to God. Jesus fasted sometimes, and kept himself looking healthy while fasting, so that no one around town would know he was fasting. The Heavenly Father saw Jesus' secret devotions and rewarded Him with Heavenly blessings. God's Life increased in Jesus to even greater abundance. God's Spirit grew inside Jesus to fill Him even more fully. So Jesus' reward for pleasing the Father was that the Father gave Jesus more of Himself.
Jesus stored up these treasures in God's Heavenly realm, and Jesus valued his treasure far more than anything he knew could be stolen or destroyed. Jesus' treasure was the light and glory of God in Heaven, and Jesus' heart was fixed fully on Him. Jesus looked at birds finding food on the ground, and he thought about God. Jesus saw flowers growing in a field, and he thought about God. That is how focused He was.
Jesus kept himself focused on God and so his whole body was filled with God's light. Therefore, he did not really worry about his life or his health, about having enough for his family to eat and drink. He worked hard every day as a carpenter, to earn these things, but he did not worry about the results. Jesus knew everything in his life was centered and dependent upon his heavenly Father. So when Jesus helped Joseph earn the family's daily bread, he thanked God for every ounce of their provisions.
Jesus did everything he did from a desire to do what God wanted and what God thought was right. It was so clear to him that when he turned around and looked at certain people in Nazareth, Jesus could tell they were not seeking God.
In Nazareth, Jesus saw people doing good works in a showy way, in the streets and the Synagogue, just to get the approval of people in town. He saw hypocrites stand up and pray in the Nazareth Synagogue and pray out loud in words they wanted everyone to hear. He saw people refuse to forgive one another, and they carried those grudges for years. Sometimes Jesus saw people fasting, and everyone could tell they were fasting because they tried hard to look hungry and weak. Jesus saw people approve of those people. He saw them getting their social rewards. But he did not see them trying to please God.
In Nazareth, Jesus saw people storing up earthly treasures like expensive clothes and decorative metals. But he knew moths would eat the clothes and the metals would tarnish and decay. Jesus also could see that rich people got robbed more often. Jesus thought about these people and concluded their eyes were bad. Since they did not look at God's light, their body was full of darkness. They worried all the time about food and wine, health and clothing. They spent all their energy sowing and reaping to feed themselves, and they did not honor God as the true provider of all the food they had gathered. They wore out their clothes and worried about replacing them. They did not even have enough faith to believe God would provide them with new clothes when their old ones wore out.
Jesus must have seen people in his hometown who feared God, but he also saw many who failed to live life with a mind to please Him in these areas. Still, somehow, Jesus kept his opinions a secret, along with his devotion to God.
The Lord waited for decades to share what these observations with anyone else. Until then, Jesus continued growing in favor with the people of Nazareth despite his great difference from them. Most amazing of all, at the very same time he was being gracious to them, Jesus was also growing in favor with God.
September 24, 2009
Event Sequencing: John's Beheading
John tells us Jesus fed 5,000 just before Passover. Matthew tells us Jesus had just heard about John's beheading earlier in that day. Mark tells us that Herod Antipas made a reference to Purim when his stepdaughter tricked him. This really can't be a coincidence, because Purim always falls about a month before Passover. Therefore, if all three writers are to be trusted on these points, the reconstructed event sequence should absolutely be taken as historical.
[Dating these events is another matter, but in 31 AD, while Sejanus was still alive, the Feast of Purim was Saturday night, February 24th, and the Passover night was Tuesday, March 26th.]
With this added perspective, we should approximate that Antipas' birthday celebration was held around or shortly after Purim. Most likely, Antipas invited the same guests from the earlier Feast of Purim, guests who would undoubtedly have expected a recitation of the Esther story by a professional or court speaker, in keeping with the Tetrarch's high status. In any such context, Antipas' birthday promise, "Whatever you ask... up to half my kingdom" can be recognized as an artful nod to the recent event's entertainment, with a clever wink to his guests.
Far more importantly, this all goes to show that the sequence of events in all four Gospels, at least at this stage of their narratives, was very much non-arbitrary. Three different Gospels offer three separate details that allign perfectly into one historical sequence. Luke's Gospel confirms the sequence and adds that the 5,000 were fed at Bethsaida. Point: all four writers had a stronger historical sense for relating events than they are sometimes given credit for.
John's beheading is clearly the most significant event during Jesus' ministry, so it makes sense that each writers' event sequence would sharpen in focus around that point in each narrative. The same holds true for the Lord's Passion week. So while there are many other challenges for Event Sequencing the content of the Gospels, this particular chain of events is encouraging because it shows the need for (and the validity of) using all four Gospels in reconstruction.
Sequence is the first step in chronology, providing perspective to history.
Event sequencing in the Gospels is vital to any historical view of Jesus' ministry years.
[Dating these events is another matter, but in 31 AD, while Sejanus was still alive, the Feast of Purim was Saturday night, February 24th, and the Passover night was Tuesday, March 26th.]
With this added perspective, we should approximate that Antipas' birthday celebration was held around or shortly after Purim. Most likely, Antipas invited the same guests from the earlier Feast of Purim, guests who would undoubtedly have expected a recitation of the Esther story by a professional or court speaker, in keeping with the Tetrarch's high status. In any such context, Antipas' birthday promise, "Whatever you ask... up to half my kingdom" can be recognized as an artful nod to the recent event's entertainment, with a clever wink to his guests.
Far more importantly, this all goes to show that the sequence of events in all four Gospels, at least at this stage of their narratives, was very much non-arbitrary. Three different Gospels offer three separate details that allign perfectly into one historical sequence. Luke's Gospel confirms the sequence and adds that the 5,000 were fed at Bethsaida. Point: all four writers had a stronger historical sense for relating events than they are sometimes given credit for.
John's beheading is clearly the most significant event during Jesus' ministry, so it makes sense that each writers' event sequence would sharpen in focus around that point in each narrative. The same holds true for the Lord's Passion week. So while there are many other challenges for Event Sequencing the content of the Gospels, this particular chain of events is encouraging because it shows the need for (and the validity of) using all four Gospels in reconstruction.
Sequence is the first step in chronology, providing perspective to history.
Event sequencing in the Gospels is vital to any historical view of Jesus' ministry years.
September 21, 2009
The Promise of Nazareth - 1
Jesus himself testified, according to John, that his teaching came from the Father and we must conclude those lessons began of providence in the Nazareth Synagogue. Yet Jesus did no teaching in his hometown before his baptism and we have no reason to think he went anywhere else to do any teaching. So what did he do with all that learning for thirty years, besides sit on it?
Did Jesus live by the lessons he was learning in Nazareth? It would be absurdly hypocritical to imagine he did not. Did Jesus teach lessons he'd spent three decades practicing? Again, if the Gospels' high opinion of this man is reliable, we must assume that he did. The lessons Jesus taught, which eventually came from his Father in ways mystical as well as providential, were entirely focused on interpreting the Law of God and applying it to situations of daily life.
The commandments of God expressed to the Hebrew Nation those things that God wants, that he desires, that he in fact commands. Therefore, sucessfully fulfilling those commandments, one would have to assume, should naturally bring God some divine manner of satisfaction. Thus, in a manner of speaking, fulfilling the Law would be the way to please God.
Matthew, Mark & Luke all profess near the beginning of their Gospels that God was indeed pleased with Jesus. Matthew adds, more pointedly, that Jesus fulfilled all righteousness and fulfilled the Law. The entire Law? Or His own interpretation of the Law? It doesn't matter. Matthew's testimony is that Jesus' life in Nazareth was pleasing to God, and Matthew's account of Jesus' teaching is the Lord passing on ways the rest of us may also become pleasing to God.
Are we therefore also required to fulfill the Law? The Law no longer needs to be fulfilled. Are we required to earn our salvation? Of course not. Jesus already did that for us, too. With such mercies, are we expected to live up to Jesus' standard? With such mercies, we trust that God knows our very human limitations. But with such mercies as we have from God, who among us would not desire to please Him?
To be continued...
Did Jesus live by the lessons he was learning in Nazareth? It would be absurdly hypocritical to imagine he did not. Did Jesus teach lessons he'd spent three decades practicing? Again, if the Gospels' high opinion of this man is reliable, we must assume that he did. The lessons Jesus taught, which eventually came from his Father in ways mystical as well as providential, were entirely focused on interpreting the Law of God and applying it to situations of daily life.
The commandments of God expressed to the Hebrew Nation those things that God wants, that he desires, that he in fact commands. Therefore, sucessfully fulfilling those commandments, one would have to assume, should naturally bring God some divine manner of satisfaction. Thus, in a manner of speaking, fulfilling the Law would be the way to please God.
Matthew, Mark & Luke all profess near the beginning of their Gospels that God was indeed pleased with Jesus. Matthew adds, more pointedly, that Jesus fulfilled all righteousness and fulfilled the Law. The entire Law? Or His own interpretation of the Law? It doesn't matter. Matthew's testimony is that Jesus' life in Nazareth was pleasing to God, and Matthew's account of Jesus' teaching is the Lord passing on ways the rest of us may also become pleasing to God.
Are we therefore also required to fulfill the Law? The Law no longer needs to be fulfilled. Are we required to earn our salvation? Of course not. Jesus already did that for us, too. With such mercies, are we expected to live up to Jesus' standard? With such mercies, we trust that God knows our very human limitations. But with such mercies as we have from God, who among us would not desire to please Him?
To be continued...
September 19, 2009
The Joys of Jesus
Reflections and refractions of Matthew 5:3-10 & 7:28-29
Jesus of Nazareth prayed to God like a beggar prays for daily bread. He prayed to the Spirit of God and he found and received God there, in the Spirit. And Jesus found joy in this lifelong poverty before God's Spirit, because the Kingdom of God had at least one faithful subject, on Earth.
Jesus of Nazareth privately lamented and wailed. He knew that something had been lost. He knew that God was not King, on the Earth. But Jesus found joy in submission to his Father. He was one who was not lost. He was called into the comfort of his Father's Kingdom.
Jesus of Nazareth was gentle and humble of heart. He did not break a bruised reed. He did not snuff out a smouldering wick. He did not rule over men like the lords of the Gentiles. But Jesus found joy because the Father gave all things over to him, so he knew he stood to inherit everything.
Jesus of Nazareth ate food and drank wine, but he hungered and thirsted much more to be right with His Father. In Him was Life and in that Life, Jesus grew. He had emptied himself, but since birth, his Father's Life and Rightness had been growing inside Him. And so Jesus found Joy, because during their three decades together on Earth, the Father was filling the Son.
Jesus of Nazareth was somewhat pitiful. He never became anyone special. He never got to get married. He never got to have kids. He just worked with wood, cared for his family, attended the Synagogue and showed compassion to other people. But Jesus found joy, because the Father took pity on his life and blessed him with spiritual blessings.
Jesus of Nazareth was clean all the way to his heart. His innermost thoughts were not cluttered and corrupted by other desires, because nothing else in all the world ever happened to equal the greatest desire of Jesus' own particular heart. Like no one before him and perhaps no one since, Jesus loved God, his Father, with all his mind and soul and strength. And so Jesus found joy, because wherever his heart looked, it could see God.
Jesus of Nazareth came to bring fire on the earth, so that God could have peace. He came to fulfil the Law, so that man could find favor with God. He came to make peace between God and man, not among all mankind. And so Jesus found joy, because He was not a son of the world, but a faithful, loyal son to his Father, God.
Jesus of Nazareth was hounded because of his Rightness with God. He was pursued. He was chased. He was always in motion. Friends and foes alike came to him everywhere, constantly pestering Him. And everywhere he went, Jesus found joy in proclaiming to all of them that the Kingdom of Heaven was right there, at hand.
The people who listened to Jesus were blessed, because he spoke with authority. He spoke from his own life experience. And the fact that people could tell Jesus knew what he was talking about... was the most amazing thing about his teaching.
Jesus of Nazareth prayed to God like a beggar prays for daily bread. He prayed to the Spirit of God and he found and received God there, in the Spirit. And Jesus found joy in this lifelong poverty before God's Spirit, because the Kingdom of God had at least one faithful subject, on Earth.
Jesus of Nazareth privately lamented and wailed. He knew that something had been lost. He knew that God was not King, on the Earth. But Jesus found joy in submission to his Father. He was one who was not lost. He was called into the comfort of his Father's Kingdom.
Jesus of Nazareth was gentle and humble of heart. He did not break a bruised reed. He did not snuff out a smouldering wick. He did not rule over men like the lords of the Gentiles. But Jesus found joy because the Father gave all things over to him, so he knew he stood to inherit everything.
Jesus of Nazareth ate food and drank wine, but he hungered and thirsted much more to be right with His Father. In Him was Life and in that Life, Jesus grew. He had emptied himself, but since birth, his Father's Life and Rightness had been growing inside Him. And so Jesus found Joy, because during their three decades together on Earth, the Father was filling the Son.
Jesus of Nazareth was somewhat pitiful. He never became anyone special. He never got to get married. He never got to have kids. He just worked with wood, cared for his family, attended the Synagogue and showed compassion to other people. But Jesus found joy, because the Father took pity on his life and blessed him with spiritual blessings.
Jesus of Nazareth was clean all the way to his heart. His innermost thoughts were not cluttered and corrupted by other desires, because nothing else in all the world ever happened to equal the greatest desire of Jesus' own particular heart. Like no one before him and perhaps no one since, Jesus loved God, his Father, with all his mind and soul and strength. And so Jesus found joy, because wherever his heart looked, it could see God.
Jesus of Nazareth came to bring fire on the earth, so that God could have peace. He came to fulfil the Law, so that man could find favor with God. He came to make peace between God and man, not among all mankind. And so Jesus found joy, because He was not a son of the world, but a faithful, loyal son to his Father, God.
Jesus of Nazareth was hounded because of his Rightness with God. He was pursued. He was chased. He was always in motion. Friends and foes alike came to him everywhere, constantly pestering Him. And everywhere he went, Jesus found joy in proclaiming to all of them that the Kingdom of Heaven was right there, at hand.
The people who listened to Jesus were blessed, because he spoke with authority. He spoke from his own life experience. And the fact that people could tell Jesus knew what he was talking about... was the most amazing thing about his teaching.
September 08, 2009
Reflections of Nazareth - 2
The Synoptic Gospels tell us God was pleased with Jesus at his baptism. Therefore, any Synoptic claim about what pleases God may serve as implicit testimony about Jesus' life in Nazareth. For example:
If we repeat the assumption from post #1, that God's reward implies God's pleasure, then we may invert at least the following portions of Matthew's 6th chapter as historical reconstructions: When Jesus lived in Nazareth, it was customary for him to give to the poor, but he did it secretly. Often times Jesus would go into a room, close the door, and pray to his Father in secret. And sometimes Jesus would fast, but he kept his face washed and put oil on his head so that nobody could tell, except for the Father. In Nazareth, the Father saw Jesus do these things, probably for many years, and the Father was pleased with his Son.
Now, let's consider this argument.
The third point is of course repeated from post #1 and the earlier points are phrased very similarly in the passage. We may note once again that Matthew contrasts Jesus here with the Pharisees and characterizes this larger section of teaching as coming from one who spoke with authority <exousia>.
Incidently, this is the first time Matthew uses this word and four of its other eight uses come soon after this (7:29 => 8:9, 9:6, 9:8, 10:1). However we nuance and build our understanding of power/authority, I will simply suggest this much. The word means someone had the right to do something and/or the ability to do something. Matthew is saying Jesus had the right and/or the ability to teach these things. So if the crowds (and Matthew) believed Jesus was able to teach these things, is there any chance they believed Jesus was unable to do them? I think not.
Given these complimentary principles of power and sincerity in his teaching, we can probably justify inverting all of Matthew 5-7 as a valid reconstruction of Jesus' personal life. However, to date those behaviors to before his baptism, according to our arguments so far, we would also need to characterize the entire Sermon on the Mount as one complete teaching on how to please God. That can probably be done very easily, and may have been done before, but I'm not prepared to build and present that argument myself at the moment.
(Unless: if the SOTM is a condensed rendering of Jesus' Halakah, then it primarly addresses how to obey God's commandments, and doing what God commands is one third of our definition for pleasing Him.)
Just to be clear, I am in fact suggesting Matthew did intend the entire Sermon on the Mount not only as instructions for his readers but also as a reflection of Jesus' own disciplines. But the real problem for our purpose here is that after we justify that position (and date it pre-baptism), some details will be more challenging to invert and reconstruct from than others. We'll go through these in time, but for now, in this series, we'll take baby steps.
For all of these reasons, for now, let's keep things simple and stick with the principle at top. We are looking for behaviors and attitudes specifically offered, according to Matthew, as ones that God likes, that God wants, or that God commands. We have also added things that God "rewards".
It's very important to go slow, take our time, and be very careful we do not assume things. We should work very hard to sense out the boundaries between proving what are Matthew's direct implications and what might only be the sloppy, eager insertions our own preferred inferrences. However, if the argument at top is valid, we now have at least three personal habits/behaviors for Jesus in Nazareth. We have giving, prayer, and fasting, all done in secret and focused on the Father - that's not a bad start at all. We hereby claim these details (and possibly much more to come) as early biographical data purposely embedded in Matthew's testimony through direct implication.
I don't know about you, but I hear the Lord's "silent years" growing slightly louder.
To be continued...
If we repeat the assumption from post #1, that God's reward implies God's pleasure, then we may invert at least the following portions of Matthew's 6th chapter as historical reconstructions: When Jesus lived in Nazareth, it was customary for him to give to the poor, but he did it secretly. Often times Jesus would go into a room, close the door, and pray to his Father in secret. And sometimes Jesus would fast, but he kept his face washed and put oil on his head so that nobody could tell, except for the Father. In Nazareth, the Father saw Jesus do these things, probably for many years, and the Father was pleased with his Son.
Now, let's consider this argument.
The third point is of course repeated from post #1 and the earlier points are phrased very similarly in the passage. We may note once again that Matthew contrasts Jesus here with the Pharisees and characterizes this larger section of teaching as coming from one who spoke with authority <exousia>.
Incidently, this is the first time Matthew uses this word and four of its other eight uses come soon after this (7:29 => 8:9, 9:6, 9:8, 10:1). However we nuance and build our understanding of power/authority, I will simply suggest this much. The word means someone had the right to do something and/or the ability to do something. Matthew is saying Jesus had the right and/or the ability to teach these things. So if the crowds (and Matthew) believed Jesus was able to teach these things, is there any chance they believed Jesus was unable to do them? I think not.
Given these complimentary principles of power and sincerity in his teaching, we can probably justify inverting all of Matthew 5-7 as a valid reconstruction of Jesus' personal life. However, to date those behaviors to before his baptism, according to our arguments so far, we would also need to characterize the entire Sermon on the Mount as one complete teaching on how to please God. That can probably be done very easily, and may have been done before, but I'm not prepared to build and present that argument myself at the moment.
(Unless: if the SOTM is a condensed rendering of Jesus' Halakah, then it primarly addresses how to obey God's commandments, and doing what God commands is one third of our definition for pleasing Him.)
Just to be clear, I am in fact suggesting Matthew did intend the entire Sermon on the Mount not only as instructions for his readers but also as a reflection of Jesus' own disciplines. But the real problem for our purpose here is that after we justify that position (and date it pre-baptism), some details will be more challenging to invert and reconstruct from than others. We'll go through these in time, but for now, in this series, we'll take baby steps.
For all of these reasons, for now, let's keep things simple and stick with the principle at top. We are looking for behaviors and attitudes specifically offered, according to Matthew, as ones that God likes, that God wants, or that God commands. We have also added things that God "rewards".
It's very important to go slow, take our time, and be very careful we do not assume things. We should work very hard to sense out the boundaries between proving what are Matthew's direct implications and what might only be the sloppy, eager insertions our own preferred inferrences. However, if the argument at top is valid, we now have at least three personal habits/behaviors for Jesus in Nazareth. We have giving, prayer, and fasting, all done in secret and focused on the Father - that's not a bad start at all. We hereby claim these details (and possibly much more to come) as early biographical data purposely embedded in Matthew's testimony through direct implication.
I don't know about you, but I hear the Lord's "silent years" growing slightly louder.
To be continued...
September 07, 2009
Jesus on the Mount
A good friend and teacher of mine once pointed out that new christians read through the Gospels and look for two things: (1) Things that make them go "wow" and (2) Things it says they've gotta do. He suggested instead that every verse of scripture can reveal something directly about Jesus and his Father. But somehow I still fail to remember that advice...
For example, I think it's fair to say the "new christian" approach probably describes my own reading of the "Sermon on the Mount" right up until recently (and probably most of what I've ever heard or seen written about it, although your experience may vary). But while Matthew definitely intended to relay Jesus' instructions for living, I now believe Matthew also intended something more, beyond that. Since the whole book was about Jesus, Matthew must have intended for Jesus' teachings to reflect directly, for his readers, who Jesus was and how he lived.
I've enjoyed finding Jesus on the Mount, and I'll be posting more about it in days to come. So if you've never done so before, I encourage you to re-read the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5-7) and look for implied descriptions of Jesus' own earthly life, as he lived it unto the Father. Even if you're not so sure about Matthew's intention, it could still be God's intention for us to find Jesus Himself in this passage. [Ya think? ;-) ]
While the devotional value of this reading should be quickly apparent for believers, I'm trying to be much more careful about drawing historical conclusions. I'd love to start a blogger-sation on this in both areas, so feel free to comment or post your own considerations from both a devotional and an historical-critical perspective. No hurry, of course. There are several bloggers whose eventual response to this I will hopefully anticipate, but I won't put anyone on the spot with a "tag" just yet, especially if this is indeed a 'new' idea.
Think about it. More importantly, enjoy finding the Lord. :-)
For example, I think it's fair to say the "new christian" approach probably describes my own reading of the "Sermon on the Mount" right up until recently (and probably most of what I've ever heard or seen written about it, although your experience may vary). But while Matthew definitely intended to relay Jesus' instructions for living, I now believe Matthew also intended something more, beyond that. Since the whole book was about Jesus, Matthew must have intended for Jesus' teachings to reflect directly, for his readers, who Jesus was and how he lived.
I've enjoyed finding Jesus on the Mount, and I'll be posting more about it in days to come. So if you've never done so before, I encourage you to re-read the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5-7) and look for implied descriptions of Jesus' own earthly life, as he lived it unto the Father. Even if you're not so sure about Matthew's intention, it could still be God's intention for us to find Jesus Himself in this passage. [Ya think? ;-) ]
While the devotional value of this reading should be quickly apparent for believers, I'm trying to be much more careful about drawing historical conclusions. I'd love to start a blogger-sation on this in both areas, so feel free to comment or post your own considerations from both a devotional and an historical-critical perspective. No hurry, of course. There are several bloggers whose eventual response to this I will hopefully anticipate, but I won't put anyone on the spot with a "tag" just yet, especially if this is indeed a 'new' idea.
Think about it. More importantly, enjoy finding the Lord. :-)
Reflections of Nazareth - 1
The Synoptic Gospels tell us God was pleased with Jesus at his baptism. Therefore, any Synoptic claim about what pleases God may serve as implicit testimony about Jesus' life in Nazareth. For example:
In Matthew 6:16-18, Jesus tells us that God rewards those who fast secretly, who put oil on their heads and wash their face, so that no one will know they are fasting. If rewarding such behavior means God likes that behavior, then Matthew must be implying this behavior was characteristic of Jesus before his baptism. We can reconstruct this with a simple inversion of Matthew's statement and say: According to Matthew's direct implication, there were times in Nazareth when Jesus fasted, but he washed his face and put oil on his head so that nobody could tell, except for the Father. And the Father saw Jesus do this, and the Father was pleased by it. (Note: For the moment, we will refrain from interpreting "reward".)
Now, let's consider this argument.
I would contend this is simply the most logical, straightforward implication of Matthew's own testimony. The only required interpretation, assuming God's reward implies God's pleasure, is hardly a stretch. Furthermore, reading this verse as a reflection of Jesus' own life is confirmed by Matthew's narration at the end of the larger passage, in which he says Jesus taught as one having authority.
If this is not valid, we would have to assume that Matthew thought Jesus was inventing new strategies for fasting which he'd never practiced himself. That certainly doesn't seem to fit Matthew's high opinion of Jesus and would actually place him closer to the showy hypocrites just decried in the same series of statements. And Matthew must have an opinion on this one way or the other, unless we suppose Matthew had mentally divorced Jesus' teachings from Jesus as a man. Personally, I do not believe that was the case.
Therefore, if we take the original passage as an historical teaching of Jesus, according to Matthew, then we may also take the inversion of it as a historical aspect of Jesus' life in Nazareth. According to Matthew, by direct implication, there were times in Nazareth when Jesus fasted. This does not tell us how many times Jesus fasted, how often or from what age in life he began doing so, but it does describe characteristic behavior which qualifies as historical activity, and dates to before Jesus' baptism (according to the premise at top).
If this first example is valid, we should keep testing our new methodology. We may also begin to hope that what have been called the Lord's "silent years" may indeed sound forth as echoes, through direct implications of the Synoptic Gospel writers.
To be continued...
In Matthew 6:16-18, Jesus tells us that God rewards those who fast secretly, who put oil on their heads and wash their face, so that no one will know they are fasting. If rewarding such behavior means God likes that behavior, then Matthew must be implying this behavior was characteristic of Jesus before his baptism. We can reconstruct this with a simple inversion of Matthew's statement and say: According to Matthew's direct implication, there were times in Nazareth when Jesus fasted, but he washed his face and put oil on his head so that nobody could tell, except for the Father. And the Father saw Jesus do this, and the Father was pleased by it. (Note: For the moment, we will refrain from interpreting "reward".)
Now, let's consider this argument.
I would contend this is simply the most logical, straightforward implication of Matthew's own testimony. The only required interpretation, assuming God's reward implies God's pleasure, is hardly a stretch. Furthermore, reading this verse as a reflection of Jesus' own life is confirmed by Matthew's narration at the end of the larger passage, in which he says Jesus taught as one having authority.
If this is not valid, we would have to assume that Matthew thought Jesus was inventing new strategies for fasting which he'd never practiced himself. That certainly doesn't seem to fit Matthew's high opinion of Jesus and would actually place him closer to the showy hypocrites just decried in the same series of statements. And Matthew must have an opinion on this one way or the other, unless we suppose Matthew had mentally divorced Jesus' teachings from Jesus as a man. Personally, I do not believe that was the case.
Therefore, if we take the original passage as an historical teaching of Jesus, according to Matthew, then we may also take the inversion of it as a historical aspect of Jesus' life in Nazareth. According to Matthew, by direct implication, there were times in Nazareth when Jesus fasted. This does not tell us how many times Jesus fasted, how often or from what age in life he began doing so, but it does describe characteristic behavior which qualifies as historical activity, and dates to before Jesus' baptism (according to the premise at top).
If this first example is valid, we should keep testing our new methodology. We may also begin to hope that what have been called the Lord's "silent years" may indeed sound forth as echoes, through direct implications of the Synoptic Gospel writers.
To be continued...
September 06, 2009
Dealing with Nazareth - 9
Matthew, Mark and Luke tell us that God was pleased with Jesus at his baptism. Our functional definition (in this series) is that you please someone by doing what they like, what they want, and/or what they tell you to do. Given that understanding, our next question is: What do Matthew, Mark and Luke tell us about God's preferences, desires and commands?
Whatever they say about those topics they must also have intended their readers to understand as a reflection of Christ's life in Nazareth, before his baptism. Furthermore, if the details of their testimony are historically accurate, then such direct implications should also be considered historically accurate. The only question is, can we effectively distinguish between that which the authors clearly meant to imply on this topic and that which our own interpretative leanings might have us infer? In short, can we determine what Matthew, Mark and Luke are telling us, implicitly, about how Jesus was pleasing to God, in his behaviors?
I think we can, although it may take a little trial and error to work out a careful and proper procedure.
To be continued...
Whatever they say about those topics they must also have intended their readers to understand as a reflection of Christ's life in Nazareth, before his baptism. Furthermore, if the details of their testimony are historically accurate, then such direct implications should also be considered historically accurate. The only question is, can we effectively distinguish between that which the authors clearly meant to imply on this topic and that which our own interpretative leanings might have us infer? In short, can we determine what Matthew, Mark and Luke are telling us, implicitly, about how Jesus was pleasing to God, in his behaviors?
I think we can, although it may take a little trial and error to work out a careful and proper procedure.
To be continued...
August 30, 2009
The Nazareth Synagogue - 14
It seems appropriate to end this series with the Nazarenes' geographical question from Jesus' second homecoming, in Matthew 13 & Mark 6. Where did he get this wisdom? By now we have formed an answer.
He got it in Nazareth. We know this because he had it by age twelve. Luke and Matthew together inform us that during the decade between leaving Egypt and attending his first Jerusalem Passover, Jesus' parents attended the spring festival every single year. That means Jesus was living there. If he had not traveled elsewhere before age twelve, and he had such wisdom from paying attention in something like 500 Sabbath meetings, then no one should think Jesus had to travel anywhere else for the next 1100 Sabbath meetings, or so, before his baptism by John.
John tells us that Jesus said he got all his teaching from the Father. Before that became directly mystical, it happened on Saturdays in the Synagogue. It happened because of a focus and an obsession that, evidently, he managed to keep totally private from the rest of the Jewish community in Nazareth. (That thought, again, needs to be held onto for some future post. For now we have merely accepted it, without attempting to explain it.)
This can probably all be accounted for by recalling the one scripture Jesus most certainly learned early in life, and the one he most certainly heard more often than all others. Hear, O Israel. The Lord your God is One. You should Love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your might. An historical view of Jesus at age twelve, filtered through all that we can possibly reconstruct about the Nazareth Synagogue, tells us Jesus must have taken this scripture greatly to heart when he was still very young.
In our modern age of leisure, some kids give their entire self to a TV show, or to a baseball team, or to a friend, or to a famous musician. In first century Nazareth, ever since Jesus was a boy, He must have genuinely cared about his Father, God, more than he cared about anything else. He was not trying hard not to sin. He was simply, sincerely, in all of his ways, worshiping Him.
I'll say it again. The historical explanation of Jesus' life before age twelve must be that this common Jew cared about God to an uncommon degree.
Everything after age twelve until age thirty-four is a question for another series.
Maybe. :-)
The End (for now)
He got it in Nazareth. We know this because he had it by age twelve. Luke and Matthew together inform us that during the decade between leaving Egypt and attending his first Jerusalem Passover, Jesus' parents attended the spring festival every single year. That means Jesus was living there. If he had not traveled elsewhere before age twelve, and he had such wisdom from paying attention in something like 500 Sabbath meetings, then no one should think Jesus had to travel anywhere else for the next 1100 Sabbath meetings, or so, before his baptism by John.
John tells us that Jesus said he got all his teaching from the Father. Before that became directly mystical, it happened on Saturdays in the Synagogue. It happened because of a focus and an obsession that, evidently, he managed to keep totally private from the rest of the Jewish community in Nazareth. (That thought, again, needs to be held onto for some future post. For now we have merely accepted it, without attempting to explain it.)
This can probably all be accounted for by recalling the one scripture Jesus most certainly learned early in life, and the one he most certainly heard more often than all others. Hear, O Israel. The Lord your God is One. You should Love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your might. An historical view of Jesus at age twelve, filtered through all that we can possibly reconstruct about the Nazareth Synagogue, tells us Jesus must have taken this scripture greatly to heart when he was still very young.
In our modern age of leisure, some kids give their entire self to a TV show, or to a baseball team, or to a friend, or to a famous musician. In first century Nazareth, ever since Jesus was a boy, He must have genuinely cared about his Father, God, more than he cared about anything else. He was not trying hard not to sin. He was simply, sincerely, in all of his ways, worshiping Him.
I'll say it again. The historical explanation of Jesus' life before age twelve must be that this common Jew cared about God to an uncommon degree.
Everything after age twelve until age thirty-four is a question for another series.
Maybe. :-)
The End (for now)
Series Update: The Nazareth Synagogue
August 28, 2009
The Nazareth Synagogue - 7
According to John's Gospel, the Jerusalem Jews knew (or could tell somehow) that Jesus had never been trained in any of their schools and Jesus' response confirmed their opinion. Trusting John, we take this as historical fact. It is less clear, however, whether this statement also implies that Jesus had never been trained elsewhere.
Of course, I'm not suggesting anything that required travel. The Gospels give us no reason to think Jesus went to Qumram, Alexandria, Rome or any other exotic location. In fact, from what the Gospels do tell us, the conclusion that Jesus had no formal training in Jerusalem should almost certainly rule out formal training anywhere else, outside of Nazareth. In other words, there is no better reason to put him with the Essenes in Transjordan than there is to make Jesus a Pharisee in Jerusalem. And so as far as the evidence goes, and chiefly according to scripture, if Jesus had no formal training in Jersualem, then his educational options are all to be found at the Nazareth Synagogue.
Now, the overall picture we've built to this point does suggest there was no formal training in Nazareth either, but we ought to consider this carefully. John may actually mean to imply Jesus had never been trained formally anywhere, but John happens to offer this statement as the opinion of Jerusalemites. If that is a historically accurate source for the opinion [as part of a reconstructed or representative conversation] then it's unclear how the Jerusalemites might know for sure whether Jesus had undergone formal schooling in Nazareth. Besides, we have already seen that Jesus' response could include hearing the Law read on the Sabbath. Therefore, John 7:15-16 does not rule out further training in Jesus' hometown.
When we think carefully about Jesus' second homecoming in Matthew 13 & Mark 6, we also find a bit of ambiguity in the response of the Nazarene Jews. We observed (two posts ago) that they were astonished to find that he could teach, especially to teach as he did. We observed that they sound as if his only proficient vocational skills, to their knowledge, were in woodworking. They evidently never learned about his age 12 sagacity.
By all this, we are sound in concluding that Jesus had never demonstrated such teaching ability, during his three decades among them. He had certainly not done so in that same way, and it is difficult to imagine him "teaching" far below his own level, from age 13 on. Most likely, he had never done any significant teaching at all, before his baptism.
However, evidence that he had never taught there is far from the same thing as evidence that he had never learned there. Even if we imagine Jesus sitting in every teaching session the Synagogue offered, we have already noted (since five posts ago) that he never spoke up in any remarkable or memorable way. Therefore, it's conceivable he went through as much education as the Nazareth Synagogue could have provided, but simply failed to display any reflective or didactic aptitude in the presence of his teachers and fellow students.
This is only to say what might be possible. The truth is probably somewhere between the two extremes. It was definitely Jesus' custom to attend Sabbath meetings in Nazareth, by which he both honored his earthly parents and grew in favor with the local community. Beyond that, Jesus may or may not have attended educational programs during the week, at the Nazareth Synagogue.
To make a more precise estimate about this, we need to consider the Nazarene response one more time, in the light of what little we know about Synagogue education before 70 AD.
To be continued...
Of course, I'm not suggesting anything that required travel. The Gospels give us no reason to think Jesus went to Qumram, Alexandria, Rome or any other exotic location. In fact, from what the Gospels do tell us, the conclusion that Jesus had no formal training in Jerusalem should almost certainly rule out formal training anywhere else, outside of Nazareth. In other words, there is no better reason to put him with the Essenes in Transjordan than there is to make Jesus a Pharisee in Jerusalem. And so as far as the evidence goes, and chiefly according to scripture, if Jesus had no formal training in Jersualem, then his educational options are all to be found at the Nazareth Synagogue.
Now, the overall picture we've built to this point does suggest there was no formal training in Nazareth either, but we ought to consider this carefully. John may actually mean to imply Jesus had never been trained formally anywhere, but John happens to offer this statement as the opinion of Jerusalemites. If that is a historically accurate source for the opinion [as part of a reconstructed or representative conversation] then it's unclear how the Jerusalemites might know for sure whether Jesus had undergone formal schooling in Nazareth. Besides, we have already seen that Jesus' response could include hearing the Law read on the Sabbath. Therefore, John 7:15-16 does not rule out further training in Jesus' hometown.
When we think carefully about Jesus' second homecoming in Matthew 13 & Mark 6, we also find a bit of ambiguity in the response of the Nazarene Jews. We observed (two posts ago) that they were astonished to find that he could teach, especially to teach as he did. We observed that they sound as if his only proficient vocational skills, to their knowledge, were in woodworking. They evidently never learned about his age 12 sagacity.
By all this, we are sound in concluding that Jesus had never demonstrated such teaching ability, during his three decades among them. He had certainly not done so in that same way, and it is difficult to imagine him "teaching" far below his own level, from age 13 on. Most likely, he had never done any significant teaching at all, before his baptism.
However, evidence that he had never taught there is far from the same thing as evidence that he had never learned there. Even if we imagine Jesus sitting in every teaching session the Synagogue offered, we have already noted (since five posts ago) that he never spoke up in any remarkable or memorable way. Therefore, it's conceivable he went through as much education as the Nazareth Synagogue could have provided, but simply failed to display any reflective or didactic aptitude in the presence of his teachers and fellow students.
This is only to say what might be possible. The truth is probably somewhere between the two extremes. It was definitely Jesus' custom to attend Sabbath meetings in Nazareth, by which he both honored his earthly parents and grew in favor with the local community. Beyond that, Jesus may or may not have attended educational programs during the week, at the Nazareth Synagogue.
To make a more precise estimate about this, we need to consider the Nazarene response one more time, in the light of what little we know about Synagogue education before 70 AD.
To be continued...
Series Update: The Nazareth Synagogue
August 27, 2009
Gospel Facts for Facts' Sake
Biblical Scholars often describe the Gospel writers as "theologians", which is somewhat anachronistic, just to begin with. But even if we call them 'amateur theologians' who charged themselves with explaining the teachings of [and about] their Lord, I still don't think God-logic was ever their primary purpose in writing. Not only do the writers constantly embed truth in action and action in truth, but the notion and practice of separating "history" from "theology" is highly acadamized and took centuries to develop. In that respect, such an approach to the Gospels seems anachronistic in the extreme.
I think the Gospel writers were simply amateur biographers, whose material was both historical and Jesus (God) centered. They made no theoretical distinction between things Jesus said and things Jesus did. They made no practical distinction in reporting on the natural and supernatural elements of their testimonies. If we accept the seemingly fantastic events as plausible and consider them to be true, then I think we have to see the Gospel writers as normal people who took up these ambitious writing projects essentially with the mindset and consciences of regular folks. They would naturally have cared about being accurate in the details they included.
Therefore, any suggestion that they deliberately falsified parts of their narratives in order to more effectively illustrate some particular principles of spiritual truth is an insult - not only to those writers, but to the notion of truthfulness itself. Their claim is always to report what had actually happened.
Now then, comparisons of the Synoptics certainly reveal creative arrangement of some relatively contextless content (most notably Matthew's mid-section and Luke's 'travelogue'). Sometimes, certain semi-redundant material seems to have been cut (such as one of two Nazareth homecomings and one of two seaside recruitments). Also, thematic elements were sometimes considered when including or omitting things in order to make a particular point (John clearly knows the story about Jesus' baptism but omits the audible voice of God in order to emphasize the spiritual voice of God). On top of all this, the Gospels were inherently self-serving. That is, they were composed in loyal service to the Jesus movement. However, if anyone on Earth is capable of honesty, then "self-definition" does not automatically imply false or untrustworthy testimony. (* You there, BW? See, I bought it and skimmed it. Am I being unfair? ;) *)
So yes, creative compositions they certainly are, but since when did creativity ever require deception or pure invention? The bottom line is that nothing prevents us from trusting them, and further, from trusting their details to be accurate. The Gospels include more than enough specific details [which show no apparent symbolism or ulterior motive at work] to convince us the writers valued and cared about facts for facts' sake. That is, of course, unless you suppose they were complete con-men. So take your pick. ;-)
---------------------------
PS: For an example of a disputed detail, let's take the rooster incident. It's possible someone was wrong about how many times the rooster crowed, but I really don't care. Two times, three times, 2*3 times? Somebody else can defend that if they want to and/or refine their definition of 'inerrancy' - which I would probably be willing to sign, if I ever bothered or cared to actually read it, and if I ever felt like signing such things, which I generally don't. ;-)
My own point is simply that, any way you slice it, those numbers show the writers cared about detail. I'm sure there's some way to explain the difference, but again, I'm really not worried about it. So I'll faithfully suspend judgment on the crowing count, thankyewverymuch, and take every claim that is clear in its rendering to have happened, historically. :-)
I think the Gospel writers were simply amateur biographers, whose material was both historical and Jesus (God) centered. They made no theoretical distinction between things Jesus said and things Jesus did. They made no practical distinction in reporting on the natural and supernatural elements of their testimonies. If we accept the seemingly fantastic events as plausible and consider them to be true, then I think we have to see the Gospel writers as normal people who took up these ambitious writing projects essentially with the mindset and consciences of regular folks. They would naturally have cared about being accurate in the details they included.
Therefore, any suggestion that they deliberately falsified parts of their narratives in order to more effectively illustrate some particular principles of spiritual truth is an insult - not only to those writers, but to the notion of truthfulness itself. Their claim is always to report what had actually happened.
Now then, comparisons of the Synoptics certainly reveal creative arrangement of some relatively contextless content (most notably Matthew's mid-section and Luke's 'travelogue'). Sometimes, certain semi-redundant material seems to have been cut (such as one of two Nazareth homecomings and one of two seaside recruitments). Also, thematic elements were sometimes considered when including or omitting things in order to make a particular point (John clearly knows the story about Jesus' baptism but omits the audible voice of God in order to emphasize the spiritual voice of God). On top of all this, the Gospels were inherently self-serving. That is, they were composed in loyal service to the Jesus movement. However, if anyone on Earth is capable of honesty, then "self-definition" does not automatically imply false or untrustworthy testimony. (* You there, BW? See, I bought it and skimmed it. Am I being unfair? ;) *)
So yes, creative compositions they certainly are, but since when did creativity ever require deception or pure invention? The bottom line is that nothing prevents us from trusting them, and further, from trusting their details to be accurate. The Gospels include more than enough specific details [which show no apparent symbolism or ulterior motive at work] to convince us the writers valued and cared about facts for facts' sake. That is, of course, unless you suppose they were complete con-men. So take your pick. ;-)
---------------------------
PS: For an example of a disputed detail, let's take the rooster incident. It's possible someone was wrong about how many times the rooster crowed, but I really don't care. Two times, three times, 2*3 times? Somebody else can defend that if they want to and/or refine their definition of 'inerrancy' - which I would probably be willing to sign, if I ever bothered or cared to actually read it, and if I ever felt like signing such things, which I generally don't. ;-)
My own point is simply that, any way you slice it, those numbers show the writers cared about detail. I'm sure there's some way to explain the difference, but again, I'm really not worried about it. So I'll faithfully suspend judgment on the crowing count, thankyewverymuch, and take every claim that is clear in its rendering to have happened, historically. :-)
August 25, 2009
The Nazareth Synagogue - 5
Jesus' first trip home to Nazareth (in Luke 4) took place in mid to late summer of 29 AD. His return trip (in Mark 6 & Matthew 13) came roughly a year later, before the second harvest of 30 AD. At the first homecoming he showed up alone and almost got thrown off a cliff. At the second homecoming, Jesus brought his disciples and nobody touched him. That alone should prove these are two separate incidents, but there are many more valuable distinctions worth noting, especially for the sake of reconstructing events.
The information we get from Mark and Matthew about this occasion is nearly the same. Mark gives a little more detail, and sounds as if Jesus might have come in a day or two early before teaching on the Sabbath. Matthew does not suggest a time frame at all, but both writers quickly establish that the central focus of the passage is going to be about teaching and learning, which was of course the main activity for the Synagogue community each Saturday.
In his first homecoming, Jesus read scripture and spoke words of grace, both of which amazed the Nazarenes, who asked, "Isn't this Joseph's son?" That earlier question sounds especially personal when compared with the somewhat similar question(s?) at his second homecoming, which focused on his vocation. (Mk: "Is not this the carpenter?" Mt: "Is not this the carpenter's son?") This time, the Nazarenes were specifically astonished by his teaching and healing abilities, as if the only skills they’d ever seen him master were in carpentry.
Both passages seem to emphasize the teachings more than the miracles, which took up much less of his time that day. It is also notable that the Synagogue and its teaching programs had long been part of Jesus' life, whereas the miracles were new. John’s Gospel tells us that miraculous powers came to Jesus only after the spirit descended upon him, so the Nazarenes being astonished about his miracles makes perfect sense. Even though they’d heard reports, they’d not seen his power first hand until now. In contrast, the Nazarenes being astonished at Jesus' teaching ability should give us pause, because Luke’s Gospel tells us that Jesus had been able to engage in rabbinic dialogue very impressively since age 12.
For that matter, we need to consider what exactly Jesus might have been “teaching” in Nazareth. Mark’s Gospel is not highly demonstrative about Jesus' teaching sessions, but parables and scripture were often involved. Matthew's Gospel is much more helpful, giving us the entire “Sermon on the Mount” - during which Jesus reinterprets the Law and describes a better approach to pleasing God and after which the crowds were astonished [exeplessonto] in the same way as the Nazarene Jews. Whether in parables or rabbinic style discourse, Jesus was no doubt explaining his revolutionary view of God and the Law.
Matthew tells us clearly (7:29) that Jesus' teaching was strikingly different from the typical Synagogue fare, and so we must conclude that if Jesus had ever discoursed in Nazareth in that way, even once in the past three decades, the Nazarenes would have been astonished at that time, instead of during this homecoming event. This is more specific than (and yet already contained within) our conclusion about his first homecoming. If Jesus had never spoken publicly in a memorable way, then that includes teaching like we are now considering. But we have gone this far with the question of his teaching in order to go a bit further.
The central question of the Nazarene Jews still stands for us today, and it begins with what must be the single most surprising word in both texts, from a historical perspective. More than once, they asked themselves, “Where…?” At first glance, we might take this merely as a rhetorical term, until we remember that Jesus has been away and traveling for the better part of two years, since his baptism. In that light, “Where…?” comes across as a definitively geographical question. Now it is our turn to be astonished. Somehow, the Nazarenes did not believe Jesus could have gained such understanding during his three decades of life right there, among themselves.
If the Jews of the Nazarene Synagogue did not know where he got his astonishing education, then where did he get it? Or, if he learned "these things" in Nazareth, why were they so astonished to think that he could have? Why did it shock them to think he had so fully mastered the Law? Why did they think he was merely a carpenter?
To be continued...
The information we get from Mark and Matthew about this occasion is nearly the same. Mark gives a little more detail, and sounds as if Jesus might have come in a day or two early before teaching on the Sabbath. Matthew does not suggest a time frame at all, but both writers quickly establish that the central focus of the passage is going to be about teaching and learning, which was of course the main activity for the Synagogue community each Saturday.
In his first homecoming, Jesus read scripture and spoke words of grace, both of which amazed the Nazarenes, who asked, "Isn't this Joseph's son?" That earlier question sounds especially personal when compared with the somewhat similar question(s?) at his second homecoming, which focused on his vocation. (Mk: "Is not this the carpenter?" Mt: "Is not this the carpenter's son?") This time, the Nazarenes were specifically astonished by his teaching and healing abilities, as if the only skills they’d ever seen him master were in carpentry.
Both passages seem to emphasize the teachings more than the miracles, which took up much less of his time that day. It is also notable that the Synagogue and its teaching programs had long been part of Jesus' life, whereas the miracles were new. John’s Gospel tells us that miraculous powers came to Jesus only after the spirit descended upon him, so the Nazarenes being astonished about his miracles makes perfect sense. Even though they’d heard reports, they’d not seen his power first hand until now. In contrast, the Nazarenes being astonished at Jesus' teaching ability should give us pause, because Luke’s Gospel tells us that Jesus had been able to engage in rabbinic dialogue very impressively since age 12.
For that matter, we need to consider what exactly Jesus might have been “teaching” in Nazareth. Mark’s Gospel is not highly demonstrative about Jesus' teaching sessions, but parables and scripture were often involved. Matthew's Gospel is much more helpful, giving us the entire “Sermon on the Mount” - during which Jesus reinterprets the Law and describes a better approach to pleasing God and after which the crowds were astonished [exeplessonto] in the same way as the Nazarene Jews. Whether in parables or rabbinic style discourse, Jesus was no doubt explaining his revolutionary view of God and the Law.
Matthew tells us clearly (7:29) that Jesus' teaching was strikingly different from the typical Synagogue fare, and so we must conclude that if Jesus had ever discoursed in Nazareth in that way, even once in the past three decades, the Nazarenes would have been astonished at that time, instead of during this homecoming event. This is more specific than (and yet already contained within) our conclusion about his first homecoming. If Jesus had never spoken publicly in a memorable way, then that includes teaching like we are now considering. But we have gone this far with the question of his teaching in order to go a bit further.
The central question of the Nazarene Jews still stands for us today, and it begins with what must be the single most surprising word in both texts, from a historical perspective. More than once, they asked themselves, “Where…?” At first glance, we might take this merely as a rhetorical term, until we remember that Jesus has been away and traveling for the better part of two years, since his baptism. In that light, “Where…?” comes across as a definitively geographical question. Now it is our turn to be astonished. Somehow, the Nazarenes did not believe Jesus could have gained such understanding during his three decades of life right there, among themselves.
If the Jews of the Nazarene Synagogue did not know where he got his astonishing education, then where did he get it? Or, if he learned "these things" in Nazareth, why were they so astonished to think that he could have? Why did it shock them to think he had so fully mastered the Law? Why did they think he was merely a carpenter?
To be continued...
Series Update: The Nazareth Synagogue
August 23, 2009
Matthew's Composition Process
This is far too rough for what it attempts, but it's the best I can do at this time so I'm posting now. Feel free to tear it apart. :-)
If we apply Johnston Cheney's chronology of the Gospels to events in Matthew, we find 1:1 through 8:13 fits the larger timeline with nothing out of sequence whatsoever (except 3 verses near the end). The same is true from Matthew 12:45 to 28:20 (except the alabaster night in Bethany). But what is interesting is that 12:46 picks up on the timeline very shortly after 8:13 left off. In other words, if 8:14-12:45 wasn't there, Matthew would be virtually perfect when compared to Cheney's chronological sequence.
Let's call the above three sections MA, MB & MC. Our first significant observation is that MB is only 17% of Matthew's text. Excepting MB, the other 83% of Matthew's Gospel follows the sequence almost perfectly. That aside, MB itself is still a complete jumble, sequentially. Working from Cheney's chronology, almost everything in MB belongs to the timeline for MA or MC. In other words, it's a hodge podge of flashbacks and flash forwards that never presents itself as such. In fact, there is only one event in MB that fits in the larger event sequence between MA & MC, which is basically the summer of 30 AD.
That exceptional MB event is the occasion when John's disciples deliver his doubts to the Lord. Interestingly, the first major event of MC, the passage on John's death that begins chapter 14, is the only straightforward flashback in Matthew's entire Gospel. Since that flashback begins by referring back to 4:12, the last major event in MA, it begins to look as if Matthew's strategy in composing the midsection of his Gospel reserved special preference for the ongoing narrative about John the Baptist. We will keep this in mind.
Analyzing MB more closely, we can subdivide and sub-label its material chronologically:
We also see that MB2 fits into Cheney's chronology just before the Sermon on the Mount and MB1 belongs just after the long teaching section of chapter 13. In fact, the entire jumble of MB, excepting the travelogue bits, fits into the timeline between 4:12 and 14:1. We might call this the "expanded MB", whose alternating segments of teaching and event based episodes covers everything in Matthew's Gospel that goes between John's arrest in the spring/summer of 29 AD and John's beheading in the winter/spring of 31.
Viewing this expanded middle, it seems Matthew has jumbled the events of his own first two summers with Jesus and purposefully re-arranged that material while enhancing the more didactic parts of the same section with additional sayings of Jesus (from the travelogue). This complex arrangement is very odd, but extremely non-random. Everything that isn't 'supposed to be there' was deliberately stolen by the author from one of three specific windows of time. The MA parts of MB remain sequential unto themselves, but are woven together sporadically with the early MC parts, which also remain in sequence unto themselves. Almost separately, the narrative thread about John provides a chronological anchor for the entire mid-section.
Can such a complex pattern reveal any simple compositional strategy? Perhaps.
The simplest explanation for MB2 is that Matthew wanted to slide the Sermon on the Mount as close to the front of his Gospel as possible, which clearly befits his larger themes and 'political' purpose in writing. On this theory, the author's first major edit was cutting the MB2 material from its chapter 4 context. Then he had to decide whether to 'delete' it or 'paste' it elsewhere.
It is far more difficult to imagine what motivated the MB1 edit, unless Matthew decided or somehow realized a larger jumble was more justifiable than one large, glaring discrepancy. Whatever motivated the next major edit, it seems early MC was transposed with MB1. Then MB1 and MB2 were interwoven in overlapping style, alternating at their most natural breaks. MB4 stayed in the MB section not equidistant from 4:12 and 14:1, but well spaced enough to keep the spine of the major plot line in development.
Finally, the lack of a pattern for Matthew's MB3 and MB5 portions actually makes sense because these portions of text are primarily snippets that supplement passages of similar tone and content. The most likely explanation here is that Matthew had already finished his gospel when he decided to go back and insert extra material in his possession, wherever it seemed appropriate.
In conclusion, it must be acknowledged this all depends on presupposing Cheney's blended event sequence from all four Gospels, and that Matthew knew precisely that sequence and tried keeping to it at first. This entire argument would probably be stronger if it were re-worked directly from the basis of comparative sequence, rather than simply following Cheney. (But hey, gimme time!)
Having said that, any careful reader must also acknowledge that the timeline of Johnston Cheney does provide a surprisingly clean view of compositional structure, sequence and chronological awareness in Matthew's Gospel.
If we apply Johnston Cheney's chronology of the Gospels to events in Matthew, we find 1:1 through 8:13 fits the larger timeline with nothing out of sequence whatsoever (except 3 verses near the end). The same is true from Matthew 12:45 to 28:20 (except the alabaster night in Bethany). But what is interesting is that 12:46 picks up on the timeline very shortly after 8:13 left off. In other words, if 8:14-12:45 wasn't there, Matthew would be virtually perfect when compared to Cheney's chronological sequence.
Let's call the above three sections MA, MB & MC. Our first significant observation is that MB is only 17% of Matthew's text. Excepting MB, the other 83% of Matthew's Gospel follows the sequence almost perfectly. That aside, MB itself is still a complete jumble, sequentially. Working from Cheney's chronology, almost everything in MB belongs to the timeline for MA or MC. In other words, it's a hodge podge of flashbacks and flash forwards that never presents itself as such. In fact, there is only one event in MB that fits in the larger event sequence between MA & MC, which is basically the summer of 30 AD.
That exceptional MB event is the occasion when John's disciples deliver his doubts to the Lord. Interestingly, the first major event of MC, the passage on John's death that begins chapter 14, is the only straightforward flashback in Matthew's entire Gospel. Since that flashback begins by referring back to 4:12, the last major event in MA, it begins to look as if Matthew's strategy in composing the midsection of his Gospel reserved special preference for the ongoing narrative about John the Baptist. We will keep this in mind.
Analyzing MB more closely, we can subdivide and sub-label its material chronologically:
* 36%, MB1, belongs between 13:52 and 14:1It may be helpful to note that the passages in MB1 and MB2 are heavily event-based, woven together as individual threads, each still in sequence to the larger timeline. MB3 is largely non-event-based teaching material, selected and inserted with no discernible pattern. MB4 falls very near the middle of MB, about where it would belong if MB (or the entire Gospel) was completely re-sequenced to the overall timeline. And MB5, for the moment, remains a beautiful, fascinatingly context-less enigma.
* 27%, MB2, belongs between 4:23 and 5:1
* 21%, MB3, aligns with material from Luke's travelogue
* 11%, MB4, is the exception passage, about John
* 03%, MB5, is unique to the gospels (11:25-30)
We also see that MB2 fits into Cheney's chronology just before the Sermon on the Mount and MB1 belongs just after the long teaching section of chapter 13. In fact, the entire jumble of MB, excepting the travelogue bits, fits into the timeline between 4:12 and 14:1. We might call this the "expanded MB", whose alternating segments of teaching and event based episodes covers everything in Matthew's Gospel that goes between John's arrest in the spring/summer of 29 AD and John's beheading in the winter/spring of 31.
Viewing this expanded middle, it seems Matthew has jumbled the events of his own first two summers with Jesus and purposefully re-arranged that material while enhancing the more didactic parts of the same section with additional sayings of Jesus (from the travelogue). This complex arrangement is very odd, but extremely non-random. Everything that isn't 'supposed to be there' was deliberately stolen by the author from one of three specific windows of time. The MA parts of MB remain sequential unto themselves, but are woven together sporadically with the early MC parts, which also remain in sequence unto themselves. Almost separately, the narrative thread about John provides a chronological anchor for the entire mid-section.
Can such a complex pattern reveal any simple compositional strategy? Perhaps.
The simplest explanation for MB2 is that Matthew wanted to slide the Sermon on the Mount as close to the front of his Gospel as possible, which clearly befits his larger themes and 'political' purpose in writing. On this theory, the author's first major edit was cutting the MB2 material from its chapter 4 context. Then he had to decide whether to 'delete' it or 'paste' it elsewhere.
It is far more difficult to imagine what motivated the MB1 edit, unless Matthew decided or somehow realized a larger jumble was more justifiable than one large, glaring discrepancy. Whatever motivated the next major edit, it seems early MC was transposed with MB1. Then MB1 and MB2 were interwoven in overlapping style, alternating at their most natural breaks. MB4 stayed in the MB section not equidistant from 4:12 and 14:1, but well spaced enough to keep the spine of the major plot line in development.
Finally, the lack of a pattern for Matthew's MB3 and MB5 portions actually makes sense because these portions of text are primarily snippets that supplement passages of similar tone and content. The most likely explanation here is that Matthew had already finished his gospel when he decided to go back and insert extra material in his possession, wherever it seemed appropriate.
In conclusion, it must be acknowledged this all depends on presupposing Cheney's blended event sequence from all four Gospels, and that Matthew knew precisely that sequence and tried keeping to it at first. This entire argument would probably be stronger if it were re-worked directly from the basis of comparative sequence, rather than simply following Cheney. (But hey, gimme time!)
Having said that, any careful reader must also acknowledge that the timeline of Johnston Cheney does provide a surprisingly clean view of compositional structure, sequence and chronological awareness in Matthew's Gospel.
August 21, 2009
12 Bodyguards at the Nazareth Synagogue
On the heels of my last post...
Without question, the Lord's primary practical purpose in selecting disciples was to train (teach, prepare, discipline) twelve of them for their upcoming mission as his apostles to the world. But along the way, they perform other duties as well. They ran errands (food in Sychar/Samaria, a lamb and a donkey in Jerusalem) or talked about doing so (facing the 5,000 at lunchtime). They most likely caught fish a whole lot more than two times.
As 'first-tour' recruits in Judea, they baptized, seemingly on their own initiative (most likely at Andrew's suggestion). Peter, for one, took strong initiative on numerous occasions and was not always shut down (the coin, the two swords). The more memorable rebukes of his worse contributions (building three shelters, denying the cross, attacking Malchus) actually demonstrates that Peter felt perfectly comfortable making bold suggestions at any time.
The others did too, just as boldly, although less individually by most accounts (calling down fire, forbidding the children). "Explain this parable", "Send her away" and "Tell us when" are all imperative statements. So the same Jesus who embraced his role as their Master was also perfectly comfortable following his trainees' commands, to some degree, if the action was appropriate.
The disciples' high level of ownership and empowerment means Jesus didn't have to instruct them to act as his bodyguards, for them to have done so. Their failed attempt to forbid the children suggests a more general practice. Yes, there were some times when the crowd pressed around Jesus, but there were others when the Lord seemed content letting his entourage act as his 'screen'. Although it certainly appears they kept that screen fairly porous at most times, by Jesus' own preference, the leading apostles were fiercely devoted to him. Given their desire to see him become King, they could not help but take initiative concerning his safety.
When the Sanhedrin finally took Jesus, they sent a cohort of armed troops to make sure they got past his apostles. Until the very moment Jesus called it off, Peter and Caiaphas were both expecting a fight. It was not the threat of dozens (or possibly hundreds - on which, see below*) of troops that scattered the Lord's men during that dark night. It was their Master's own shocking surrender.
Up to that night, Jesus' practice of fostering initiative among his apostles-in-training should emphasize for us that there were always twelve extra minds at work, wherever they went. There were twelve extra wills to contend with, if you wanted to get close to Jesus. And there were twelve extra sets of eyes looking over the Nazareth Synagogue [at his second homecoming, in the summer/autumn of 30 AD]. However those eyes did their looking - gently, firmly, harshly or severely - they most certainly would have said, Don't even think about it, if anyone in the crowd so much as stepped in their Master's direction with apparent intent to do harm.
Once again, the authorities over Jerusalem sent an armed cohort to get past these guys. By comparison, the small village community of Nazareth would have been unwise to attempt the same thing with no planning, and probably would not have been able to drag Jesus up the hill to the cliff if the disciples had been there on that occasion. These considerations add significant weight to the view from a harmonized chronology that Jesus' homecoming in Luke 4 was a completely separate occasion from that of Mark 6 and Matthew 13.
---------------------------------------
* If the cohort was indeed Roman, it did not have to be at full strength - up to 500, or according to some, possibly 1000 Legionaries. It does seem less likely that Caiaphas got Pilate to send so many men, but the numbers itself (perhaps somewhere in the low hundreds) are not inconceivable. If the soldiers literally besieged Gethsemane from all sides before moving in, it would have been a foolproof strategy for capturing Jesus. That might seem excessive to us, but Roman military tactics at this stage in the Empire tended heavily towards staging an overwhelming show of force to avoid any unnecessary fighting. Given recent events in Palestine, Pilate might have been far more likely to send one or two hundred than merely a few.
On the other hand, even if we imagine Jerusalem's leaders sent between fifteen and a hundred troops, that's still quite a statement. Jesus had eleven apostles on his side in the garden that night, plus one boy in a sheet, and perhaps several more followers as well. But even if the cohort came merely in equal numbers to the size of His entourage that night, we should be impressed with their respect for the apostles. Twelve, twenty or thirty armed military men, highly trained as a unit, should have easily taken down the same number of simple peasants. Practically, therefore, for our purposes here, the numbers are moot. Even at the smallest reasonable estimate, the authorities had taken the measure of these men for a year in Judea and a week in Jerusalem, and on that undoubtedly careful recognizance, they sent a cohort!
Without question, the Lord's primary practical purpose in selecting disciples was to train (teach, prepare, discipline) twelve of them for their upcoming mission as his apostles to the world. But along the way, they perform other duties as well. They ran errands (food in Sychar/Samaria, a lamb and a donkey in Jerusalem) or talked about doing so (facing the 5,000 at lunchtime). They most likely caught fish a whole lot more than two times.
As 'first-tour' recruits in Judea, they baptized, seemingly on their own initiative (most likely at Andrew's suggestion). Peter, for one, took strong initiative on numerous occasions and was not always shut down (the coin, the two swords). The more memorable rebukes of his worse contributions (building three shelters, denying the cross, attacking Malchus) actually demonstrates that Peter felt perfectly comfortable making bold suggestions at any time.
The others did too, just as boldly, although less individually by most accounts (calling down fire, forbidding the children). "Explain this parable", "Send her away" and "Tell us when" are all imperative statements. So the same Jesus who embraced his role as their Master was also perfectly comfortable following his trainees' commands, to some degree, if the action was appropriate.
The disciples' high level of ownership and empowerment means Jesus didn't have to instruct them to act as his bodyguards, for them to have done so. Their failed attempt to forbid the children suggests a more general practice. Yes, there were some times when the crowd pressed around Jesus, but there were others when the Lord seemed content letting his entourage act as his 'screen'. Although it certainly appears they kept that screen fairly porous at most times, by Jesus' own preference, the leading apostles were fiercely devoted to him. Given their desire to see him become King, they could not help but take initiative concerning his safety.
When the Sanhedrin finally took Jesus, they sent a cohort of armed troops to make sure they got past his apostles. Until the very moment Jesus called it off, Peter and Caiaphas were both expecting a fight. It was not the threat of dozens (or possibly hundreds - on which, see below*) of troops that scattered the Lord's men during that dark night. It was their Master's own shocking surrender.
Up to that night, Jesus' practice of fostering initiative among his apostles-in-training should emphasize for us that there were always twelve extra minds at work, wherever they went. There were twelve extra wills to contend with, if you wanted to get close to Jesus. And there were twelve extra sets of eyes looking over the Nazareth Synagogue [at his second homecoming, in the summer/autumn of 30 AD]. However those eyes did their looking - gently, firmly, harshly or severely - they most certainly would have said, Don't even think about it, if anyone in the crowd so much as stepped in their Master's direction with apparent intent to do harm.
Once again, the authorities over Jerusalem sent an armed cohort to get past these guys. By comparison, the small village community of Nazareth would have been unwise to attempt the same thing with no planning, and probably would not have been able to drag Jesus up the hill to the cliff if the disciples had been there on that occasion. These considerations add significant weight to the view from a harmonized chronology that Jesus' homecoming in Luke 4 was a completely separate occasion from that of Mark 6 and Matthew 13.
---------------------------------------
* If the cohort was indeed Roman, it did not have to be at full strength - up to 500, or according to some, possibly 1000 Legionaries. It does seem less likely that Caiaphas got Pilate to send so many men, but the numbers itself (perhaps somewhere in the low hundreds) are not inconceivable. If the soldiers literally besieged Gethsemane from all sides before moving in, it would have been a foolproof strategy for capturing Jesus. That might seem excessive to us, but Roman military tactics at this stage in the Empire tended heavily towards staging an overwhelming show of force to avoid any unnecessary fighting. Given recent events in Palestine, Pilate might have been far more likely to send one or two hundred than merely a few.
On the other hand, even if we imagine Jerusalem's leaders sent between fifteen and a hundred troops, that's still quite a statement. Jesus had eleven apostles on his side in the garden that night, plus one boy in a sheet, and perhaps several more followers as well. But even if the cohort came merely in equal numbers to the size of His entourage that night, we should be impressed with their respect for the apostles. Twelve, twenty or thirty armed military men, highly trained as a unit, should have easily taken down the same number of simple peasants. Practically, therefore, for our purposes here, the numbers are moot. Even at the smallest reasonable estimate, the authorities had taken the measure of these men for a year in Judea and a week in Jerusalem, and on that undoubtedly careful recognizance, they sent a cohort!
August 15, 2009
The Nazareth Synagogue - 1
Around late summer of 29 AD, near the start of his public ministry in Galilee, Jesus went home to Nazareth. Only Luke records this particular visit, which is clearly a different event from the (far less dramatic) occasion recorded by Matthew & Mark. According to Luke, the Jews at the Nazareth Synagogue had recently heard about Jesus' time in Capernaum, including some miracles he'd performed, and that Jesus had begun teaching in Synagogues.
So Jesus comes into the Nazareth Synagogue one Saturday, as had been his custom, and then he stood up to read. Public reading is not necessarily described as having been his custom but he does seem familiar enough with the scroll to handle it easily. Impressively, he unrolls it to locate a particular passage [about 91% of the way through, if Nazareth owned a complete copy of Isaiah in one scroll]. Then he reads it. Significantly, it does not appear that any of this was surprising to the Nazarenes, based on what happens next.
Luke says the Nazarenes were amazed at his words, specifically, that his words had such grace. This obviously suggests that Jesus had never spoken in the Nazareth Synagogue before now. [I mean, that he'd never been the featured speaker.] Again, they'd heard he'd been speaking in Synagogues, but apparently they'd not had the experience.
However, whereas those other engagements are characterized as instructive, this episode lacks any similar aspect, at least, as rendered. Instead of teaching the Nazarenes, Jesus seems to be merely talking. Luke draws quite a contrast between this episode and the age 12 Passover trip. Whereas the Jerusalemites were impressed with Jesus' sagacity and ability to dialogue with them, the Nazarenes react to very different, more personal aspects of Jesus' presentation.
Regardless of whether Jesus was 'teaching' the Nazarenes per se, the key point is that they were amazed with the grace (charis) of his words. This itself should be surprising, because Luke has just said Jesus grew in favor (charis) with the people of Nazareth for about thirty years. If the Nazarenes knew Jesus to be a person of graciousness, why would they be surprised to hear gracious words coming out of his mouth? That probably tells us as much about the regular speakers at the Nazarene Synagogue as it does about Jesus. [It may also tell us something about 1st century Rabbinic teaching in general, but that's beside the point at the moment.]
The oddness of that grace was probably one aspect making it difficult for the Nazarenes to accept his words. Of course, the major cause of their resistance has got to be his personal claim to stand there fulfilling Isaiah, which naturally leads to the "Joseph's kid!?" and "hometown prophet" exchange. But you, dear readers, already know I'm reviewing this topic in order to ask a simple, but fairly challenging question:
What does this tell us about Jesus life in Nazareth, during the "silent years"?
To be continued...
So Jesus comes into the Nazareth Synagogue one Saturday, as had been his custom, and then he stood up to read. Public reading is not necessarily described as having been his custom but he does seem familiar enough with the scroll to handle it easily. Impressively, he unrolls it to locate a particular passage [about 91% of the way through, if Nazareth owned a complete copy of Isaiah in one scroll]. Then he reads it. Significantly, it does not appear that any of this was surprising to the Nazarenes, based on what happens next.
Luke says the Nazarenes were amazed at his words, specifically, that his words had such grace. This obviously suggests that Jesus had never spoken in the Nazareth Synagogue before now. [I mean, that he'd never been the featured speaker.] Again, they'd heard he'd been speaking in Synagogues, but apparently they'd not had the experience.
However, whereas those other engagements are characterized as instructive, this episode lacks any similar aspect, at least, as rendered. Instead of teaching the Nazarenes, Jesus seems to be merely talking. Luke draws quite a contrast between this episode and the age 12 Passover trip. Whereas the Jerusalemites were impressed with Jesus' sagacity and ability to dialogue with them, the Nazarenes react to very different, more personal aspects of Jesus' presentation.
Regardless of whether Jesus was 'teaching' the Nazarenes per se, the key point is that they were amazed with the grace (charis) of his words. This itself should be surprising, because Luke has just said Jesus grew in favor (charis) with the people of Nazareth for about thirty years. If the Nazarenes knew Jesus to be a person of graciousness, why would they be surprised to hear gracious words coming out of his mouth? That probably tells us as much about the regular speakers at the Nazarene Synagogue as it does about Jesus. [It may also tell us something about 1st century Rabbinic teaching in general, but that's beside the point at the moment.]
The oddness of that grace was probably one aspect making it difficult for the Nazarenes to accept his words. Of course, the major cause of their resistance has got to be his personal claim to stand there fulfilling Isaiah, which naturally leads to the "Joseph's kid!?" and "hometown prophet" exchange. But you, dear readers, already know I'm reviewing this topic in order to ask a simple, but fairly challenging question:
What does this tell us about Jesus life in Nazareth, during the "silent years"?
To be continued...
Series Update: The Nazareth Synagogue
August 09, 2009
Ancient Journalism - Speeches and Sound Bytes
Ancient historians often put long speeches into the mouths of historical figures. Generally, we take the gist of these speeches as informative in an accurate way, but of course the entire speech was not recorded with a tape recorder. Short sayings, however, are often taken verbatim. I don't think anyone doubts Suetonius' assertion that Augustus liked to say "make haste slowly" or Dio Cassius' claim that the Emperor said, "I would rather be Herod's pig than his son." Such quotable sound bytes are memorable for obvious reasons, and thus inherently trustable. If the so-called 'telephone game' had affected those statements much, they would never have been so notable. Besides, both lines befit the people involved and line up with the facts.
Now what about the Gospels? Jesus makes long speeches in all of them. Luke's version of the "sermon on the mount" is much abbriged from Matthew's. Yet within all Jesus' speeches are a great many "quotable soundbytes". Also, the content was usually much more dramatic and impactful than legal arguments or political appeals. We shouldn't be too quick to doubt them as being accurate to a fairly high degree, if not absolutely verbatim.
In addition, it is not necessary to believe the first written versions came decades later (as scholars generally assume). As I have argued here repeatedly, the Jewish culture was a highly literary one, if not a highly literate one. Writings and readings were an enormous part of the Jewish identity and daily experience. Since Jesus' followers undoubtedly considered Moses and the Prophets to have been traveling writers, as well as speakers, it is highly plausible to suppose the disciples would have worked as a group to make sure at least one educated man among themselves was updating a written account, along the way. (As should be well known by now, I believe that man was probably Matthew.)
With all of that, I do not think christians need to (or should) believe that every "red letter" word in the Gospels was spoken by the Lord precisely as recorded. Honestly, I stand with those who say that if the ancients themselves didn't expect verbatim accounts, we should accept that and understand the historical limitations of ancient speech recording.
And now with that balancing remark, I certainly believe christians should take all the "red letter" words as if they were spoken verbaitm. On the other hand, how do we determine what to take from Jesus' speeches for the purposes of historical reconstruction? How much can (or should) we consider as verbaitm? I gonna take a stab now, even though I know I'll keep percolating on this for a long time to come... [Update: I am essentially done percolating on John. The Synoptics, however, are my focus in this post.]
Ironically, those who say the Gospel writers added "theological" content of their own may actually give us a way to believe Jesus' speeches have MORE historical reliability... that is, IF those "theological" insertions were actually, honest-to-goodness, divine revelations of God. But I'm not saying the writers were given dictation as if God was the tape recorder during the speeches. I'm saying that if the writings are truly inspired, then we should confidently consider them virtually accurate.
I guess what I'm basically saying is that "close counts" in horseshoes and holy scripture. ;-)
Now what about the Gospels? Jesus makes long speeches in all of them. Luke's version of the "sermon on the mount" is much abbriged from Matthew's. Yet within all Jesus' speeches are a great many "quotable soundbytes". Also, the content was usually much more dramatic and impactful than legal arguments or political appeals. We shouldn't be too quick to doubt them as being accurate to a fairly high degree, if not absolutely verbatim.
In addition, it is not necessary to believe the first written versions came decades later (as scholars generally assume). As I have argued here repeatedly, the Jewish culture was a highly literary one, if not a highly literate one. Writings and readings were an enormous part of the Jewish identity and daily experience. Since Jesus' followers undoubtedly considered Moses and the Prophets to have been traveling writers, as well as speakers, it is highly plausible to suppose the disciples would have worked as a group to make sure at least one educated man among themselves was updating a written account, along the way. (As should be well known by now, I believe that man was probably Matthew.)
With all of that, I do not think christians need to (or should) believe that every "red letter" word in the Gospels was spoken by the Lord precisely as recorded. Honestly, I stand with those who say that if the ancients themselves didn't expect verbatim accounts, we should accept that and understand the historical limitations of ancient speech recording.
And now with that balancing remark, I certainly believe christians should take all the "red letter" words as if they were spoken verbaitm. On the other hand, how do we determine what to take from Jesus' speeches for the purposes of historical reconstruction? How much can (or should) we consider as verbaitm? I gonna take a stab now, even though I know I'll keep percolating on this for a long time to come... [Update: I am essentially done percolating on John. The Synoptics, however, are my focus in this post.]
Ironically, those who say the Gospel writers added "theological" content of their own may actually give us a way to believe Jesus' speeches have MORE historical reliability... that is, IF those "theological" insertions were actually, honest-to-goodness, divine revelations of God. But I'm not saying the writers were given dictation as if God was the tape recorder during the speeches. I'm saying that if the writings are truly inspired, then we should confidently consider them virtually accurate.
I guess what I'm basically saying is that "close counts" in horseshoes and holy scripture. ;-)
August 07, 2009
Dealing with Nazareth - 6
We’re going to stick with the Synoptics for now [not because of the challenges inherent with Johannine historiography, which we may deal with later, but] because our starting point comes from Matthew, Mark & Luke. Conveniently, our only direct evidence concerning Jesus’ active life (pre-baptism) is Luke’s account of his twelve year old trip to Jerusalem. Of course, this episode features Jesus talking about God as his Father, which touches the question at hand: what did Jesus do that caused God to be pleased with him?
The most interesting thing about what Jesus says, however, is how little he actually says. Literally, “Didn’t you know I had to be in the _ of my Father?” (Or, “in the things of my Father?”) Oddly, the word ‘the’ has no object, leaving the crux of the sentence in complete ambiguity. There’s certainly not much weight for the traditional rendering “house”. We could possibly translate “among the people of my Father” [because “the” is plural here] but the common alternative, “about my Father’s business” is probably safest, as it stays close to the literal meaning without adding interpretative guesswork.
This seems unfortunate, but it may be just the opposite. Instead of being able to focus on the connecting idea, and speculate on its value, we are left with only “the Father”. This underscores what ought to be the key significance of Jesus’ statement in the first place. Regardless of whether it was his Father’s house, his Father’s people, or his Father’s task list that Jesus was interested in, we should absolutely conclude the young man’s focus in that sentence was not primarily on the house, people or task – at least, not in a way separate from his obvious emphasis on the fact that, whatever he was doing there, he was there because it had to do with the Father.
Although it is tempting to infer obedience in this episode [an interpretation we might covet as a quicker means of answering the question at hand] nothing in the passage tells us directly whether the Father had any active role in mystically directing Jesus during this time. He very well may have. We should not assume he did not. But to be disciplined about this inquiry, we may not necessarily assume that he did. We may or may not be able to revisit this question down the road, either. Just keep that in mind.
The most valuable point here is the fact that Jesus apparently had uncanny insight into topics that would impress the most devout Jerusalemites. If most of them were Rabbis, then the topic for most of those three days was undoubtedly interpretation of the Law. And the most likely interpretation to amaze such men would be one that consistently turned each point under discussion to find its significance chiefly with respect to God Himself.
Without elaborating, or inventing fantastic ideas, there is simply no other suggestion worth making as to the content of Jesus’ input to their discussions. The heart of the Jewish faith is Yahweh and his desires concerning people. If a twelve year old had simply been very intelligent, it would not have been so abnormal. Therefore, for a collection of teachers to be so impressed with his questions and answers, Jesus had to be zeroing in on each point as it related to the Main Point(s). This also suggests he did not necessarily have all the answers, yet, but he had the right perspective. Evidently.
If this is indeed the most natural conclusion to be drawn from the passage then it gives us a huge boost towards a glimpse at the rest of his "hidden" life. Jesus confessed that he was focused on whatever had to do with his Father. And Jesus was aware of God’s primacy in all things related to the Law and the Hebrew scriptures.
This is an excellent beginning. We may not yet have enough to extensively say why the Father was well pleased with the rest of Christ’s earthly life, but we have a twelve year old Jesus who seems to be primarily focused on Him and who gives him first place in all things that had any value for the leaders of his people and culture.
From God’s vantage point, that had to be pleasing. But we are only beginning to deal with the so called "silent years" of Christ's life in Nazareth.
To be continued...
The most interesting thing about what Jesus says, however, is how little he actually says. Literally, “Didn’t you know I had to be in the _ of my Father?” (Or, “in the things of my Father?”) Oddly, the word ‘the’ has no object, leaving the crux of the sentence in complete ambiguity. There’s certainly not much weight for the traditional rendering “house”. We could possibly translate “among the people of my Father” [because “the” is plural here] but the common alternative, “about my Father’s business” is probably safest, as it stays close to the literal meaning without adding interpretative guesswork.
This seems unfortunate, but it may be just the opposite. Instead of being able to focus on the connecting idea, and speculate on its value, we are left with only “the Father”. This underscores what ought to be the key significance of Jesus’ statement in the first place. Regardless of whether it was his Father’s house, his Father’s people, or his Father’s task list that Jesus was interested in, we should absolutely conclude the young man’s focus in that sentence was not primarily on the house, people or task – at least, not in a way separate from his obvious emphasis on the fact that, whatever he was doing there, he was there because it had to do with the Father.
Although it is tempting to infer obedience in this episode [an interpretation we might covet as a quicker means of answering the question at hand] nothing in the passage tells us directly whether the Father had any active role in mystically directing Jesus during this time. He very well may have. We should not assume he did not. But to be disciplined about this inquiry, we may not necessarily assume that he did. We may or may not be able to revisit this question down the road, either. Just keep that in mind.
The most valuable point here is the fact that Jesus apparently had uncanny insight into topics that would impress the most devout Jerusalemites. If most of them were Rabbis, then the topic for most of those three days was undoubtedly interpretation of the Law. And the most likely interpretation to amaze such men would be one that consistently turned each point under discussion to find its significance chiefly with respect to God Himself.
Without elaborating, or inventing fantastic ideas, there is simply no other suggestion worth making as to the content of Jesus’ input to their discussions. The heart of the Jewish faith is Yahweh and his desires concerning people. If a twelve year old had simply been very intelligent, it would not have been so abnormal. Therefore, for a collection of teachers to be so impressed with his questions and answers, Jesus had to be zeroing in on each point as it related to the Main Point(s). This also suggests he did not necessarily have all the answers, yet, but he had the right perspective. Evidently.
If this is indeed the most natural conclusion to be drawn from the passage then it gives us a huge boost towards a glimpse at the rest of his "hidden" life. Jesus confessed that he was focused on whatever had to do with his Father. And Jesus was aware of God’s primacy in all things related to the Law and the Hebrew scriptures.
This is an excellent beginning. We may not yet have enough to extensively say why the Father was well pleased with the rest of Christ’s earthly life, but we have a twelve year old Jesus who seems to be primarily focused on Him and who gives him first place in all things that had any value for the leaders of his people and culture.
From God’s vantage point, that had to be pleasing. But we are only beginning to deal with the so called "silent years" of Christ's life in Nazareth.
To be continued...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)