What Was That 666 Thing in Revelation?

~ Dana Horton ~ Leave a comment

We’ve mentioned a few times of late that Jesus, Paul, and John the Baptist all preached that the end of the world was near. It was called apocalyptic teaching, and was not unusual for that time period. In addition to the oral warnings of the apocalypse, there were also several written apocalyptic texts. We in the West are most familiar with the one that got included in the New Testament — Revelation (there is no ‘s’).

  • Who wrote Revelation? The author calls himself John. But it is never clear whether this was John, one of Jesus’ disciples, or some other guy named John. (Fun fact:  The Gospel of John was not written by John.)
  • What was the primary focus of Revelation? The author probably started Revelation sometime in the 60s of the Common Era. Nero was in charge in Rome. And he carried out some major persecutions of this newly developing Christian community. Revelation was intended to let the Christian community know that God was going to fix that … and soon. It was written for his 1st century audience, not as a description of the end of times in 2020.
  • What’s this 666 thing? What would a story about Revelation be without mentioning 666? Revelation talks about an entity called the Beast arriving to punish the world. This is before God comes to rescue everybody — or at least the good people.The author specifically says that the number of the Beast is 666. In those times, numerical systems used letters of the alphabet, not the Arabic numerals we use today. And when you add up the numerical values of Caesar Nero you get … yep … 666. (Side note:  Remember having to translate those stupid Roman numerals back in Junior High? The Arabic numerals we use today did not come about until well after 500 CE).

Always feel free to forward to your friends or relatives. And we’re happy to add to our list of subscribers. We never proselytize here at Three Bullet Thursday. And we’ve never been approached with a multi-million dollar offer to sell our mailing list to some International organization.

Were the Essenes Really Celibate?

~ Dana Horton ~ Leave a comment

Last week we speculated if Jesus was married. We’re not sure if we resolved that issue, but let’s bring up another similar one anyway — the Essenes and celibacy. One of our readers from the West Coast brought up this subject in a letter to the editor after last week’s publication.

The reports of the Essenes being celibate largely come from two Jewish historians (Josephus being one of them) and one Roman official (Pliny the Elder). All of these writers were (unhappily) married .. Josephus three times. And all three firmly state (with admiration) that the Essenes were a community that practiced celibacy. And over the course of 2,000 years Jesus has sometimes been seen as being affiliated with this group.

  • Who were the Essenes? This group does not get a lot of press in the New Testament. The Essenes were a splinter group that did not like some of the decisions the traditional Jewish hierarchy. And they had a lot of rules. A lot. A two-year initiation was required, after which, if approved, a member was to donate all of his possessions to the community fund and share the common meal with all the other members. Rigorous guidelines dictated the life of the community. Members had fixed hours for work and rest and for their meals, there were required times of fasting, and strict penalties were imposed for unseemly behavior such as interrupting one another, talking at meals, and laughing at inappropriate times. Sign me up. They also had a strong belief that the end of times was near. Prophets (e.g. Jeremiah) had been predicting the end of times for centuries even then. But this time it looked feasible because of all the conflict between Rome and the Jewish community.
  • Was Jesus an Essene? Most scholars today think Jesus was probably not an Essene. Although he shared their apocalyptic belief system (as well as John the Baptist), he was not caught up in the use of the proper Jewish calendar; he did not care which Jewish line produced the high priest; and the rituals and separation from society imposed by the Essenes were a little too strict.
  • Bring in the written documentation. The Dead Sea Scrolls (discovered in caves along the Dead Sea — duh — between 1947-1956) were contemporary Jewish writings from the time of the Essenes. Although the scrolls contain the strict rules noted above, they never hint at celibacy. And even though they were written and hidden away in the Jewish uprisings in the 1st century, there is nothing about Jesus or John the Baptist in any of them. Editor note:  As a reminder, the Dead Sea scrolls are different from those other gospels (e.g. Gospel of Mary and Gospel of Thomas) that were found in other places (e.g. Nag Hammadi) at other times.

Always feel free to forward to your friends or relatives. And we’re happy to add to our list of subscribers. We never proselytize here at Three Bullet Thursday. And we’ve never been approached to sell our mailing list to some multi-national organization.

Was Jesus Married?

~ Dana Horton ~ Leave a comment

Question of the week:  Was Jesus married?

  • It would have been very unusual in those days for a Jewish man not to be married.The New Testament is actually silent on the matter of whether Jesus was married or not. But that does not mean we should assume the latter. The New Testament is silent on a lot of historical facets of the life of Jesus. In two interesting examples, the gospel of Mark never mentions Jesus’ father, and the gospel of John never mentions his mother by name. The New Testament does not say anything directly about wives for any of the 12 disciples either. Although there is a reference to Peter’s mother-in-law, whom Jesus healed in Mark 1:30. And Paul acknowledges that wives (all nameless) accompanied the disciples on their missions.
  • Paul’s silence may be proof. Interestingly, Paul may have come the closest to confirming that Jesus was married. Paul was all about celibacy, because he thought the end of times was near and it was better to be prepared for tough times ahead by being celibate (we thought Paul was a good marketer when he abolished the circumcision requirement, but this one baffles). You’d think that if Jesus himself were celibate, Paul would have used Jesus as his prime argument for why celibacy was a good thing. But he doesn’t. He actually admits in 1 Corinthians 7:25 that “I have no command of the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy.” 
  • Why do we assume Jesus was unmarried? The reason most Christians in 2020 think of Jesus as being celibate largely comes from the negative attitudes against women and sex that were developed by the early Christian church leaders. Some of the writings from Augustine, Jerome, and other Christian leaders are almost scary in how they address women. For example, how about this from Tertullian, the “father of Latin Christianity” in talking about Eve (and by inference all women in the human race):
    • You are the gateway of the devil; you are the one who unseals the curse of that tree, and you are the first one to turn your back on the divine law; you are the one who persuaded him whom the devil was not capable of corrupting; you easily destroyed the image of God, Adam. Because of what you deserve, that is, death, even the Son of God had to die.

Wow.

Mary Magdalene — scandal in the Gospels?

~ Dana Horton ~ Leave a comment

Last week we speculated whether Mary Magdalene may have penned the Gospel of Mark. That was fun. This week we are going to explore how the different gospels described Mary Magdalene.

  • Several references. Mary M is mentioned in eleven different New Testament texts. Mark and John generally cast her in a favorable light. She was there at the cross (while the disciples were hiding). She prepares the Jewish burial rituals. And she was one of the first witnesses to the Resurrection.
  • And then there’s the feet story. Because we like scandal here at 3BT, let’s look at the story of Mary M in the Gospel of John when she pours oil on Jesus’ feet and wipes them with her hair. What’s that all about? It would be highly unusual (i.e. scandalous) in those times for a woman to touch a man who was not her husband in this manner. Plus that hair thing was considered to have sexual connotations. And finally there’s the metaphysical interpretation of feet. Yep, we better stop there. 
  • Then there’s Luke. Luke especially seems to have had a burr up his arse about her. Luke takes some of the same stories (remember he has Mark’s version open on the kitchen table while he is writing his version) but recasts them to insinuate that Mary M was a “sinner” (i.e. whore). Luke describes her as possessed by demons (or at least that’s how the church leaders decided that’s what Luke meant). He also does not mention Mary M as being at the crucifixion, at the tomb, or in any post-resurrection appearances by Jesus. 

By the time we get to the second century, the Christian church leaders (all male) kinda pieced together the verses they wanted to use to cast Mary M as a prostitute. It was good marketing — everyone likes a little sex innuendo. And it made Jesus even more pious because he interacted and forgave the sins of people like Mary M. Even today the 

Question of the week:  Was Jesus married? We bet that never came up in Sunday School.

Did Mary Magdalen write Mark?

~ Dana Horton ~ Leave a comment

Last week we posited that it might be feasible (albeit a long shot) that the Gospel of Mark was written by a woman. Let’s look at this a little more.

  • Bumbling Disciples. Mark continually casts the 12 disciples as characters who do not understand the teachings of Jesus. All of them even flea at the end when Jesus is arrested, leaving three women to discover the empty tomb.
  • Righteous women. In contrast to the disciples, Mark has several stories where women are the prime exemplars of righteous behavior. Featuring women in a favorable light was very unusual for the time.
    • First, there’s the woman who is healed instantly by touching Jesus’ cloak.
    • Second, there’s the Gentile woman who challenges Jewish tradition (Jews and Gentiles did not usually speak) to ask Jesus to heal her daughter. Jesus readily grants the request and then goes into a parable about a dog and crumbs under the table (where does he get these things?).
    • Then there’s the well-known story about the poor woman who put everything she owned (two copper coins) into the treasury of the Temple. Jesus commends her for her actions, while in contrast the disciples exit the Temple talking about how nice the building is (Mark 13:1).
  • Did Mary Magdalene write Mark? Finally, and this is where the speculation gets interesting, there is the story about the woman who anoints Jesus with expensive oil shortly before his trial and crucifixion. This is clearly a symbolic story emphasizing the expectation of Jesus’ return as King. Archaeologist and Biblical scholar James Tabor (Jamestabor.com) argues that this last woman could be Mary Magdalene herself, making a cameo appearance in the gospel as its author — just like Alfred Hitchcock.

Dan Brown has nothing on Three Bullet Thursday.

Were the 12 Disciples That Stupid?

~ Dana Horton ~ Leave a comment

You ever notice how the gospels describe the 12 disciples in less than glamorous terms? Mark is especially hard on these guys. Let’s take a look.

  • Jesus rebukes them repeatedly. The 12 spend aN awful lot of time with Jesus, and yet they never quite get it. All the gospels regularly describe them as “fearful,” “confused,” and “unbelieving. But Mark even adds editorial comments at the end of certain stories, saying regularly, “but the disciples did not understand what this meant.” 
    • Here’s a good example. There are actually two stories in Mark about Jesus feeding large groups of people (no metaphysical rabbit trails this week on the meaning of 5,000). But even the second time around, the disciples wonder how Jesus is going to do it. They obviously don’t remember that last week at the revival up the road he did the same thing. Even Jesus grows impatient (“Do you have eyes, and fail to see?” Mark 8:17).
    • In another episode the disciples tried unsuccessfully to heal a boy. Jesus, clearly exasperated, asks, “How long shall I stay with you and put up with you?”
  • And they continue to bicker as the crucifixion approaches. Jesus gets pretty clear when he talks about the crucifixion (“Listen carefully to what I am about to tell you: The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of men”). No symbolic parable there. But after one of these revelations, the disciples decide that it was a great time to talk about which of them is the greatest. And James and John even use the opportunity to ask if they could have the two prime seats when Jesus comes again. Geeez. What were they thinking?
  • Finally, even at the end, they can’t stay awake while Jesus is praying. They all fled when Jesus gets arrested — one of them in the nude when he slips the grips of a guard by stripping off his cloak (Mark 14:50-52). And even Peter “The Rock” denies that he ever knew him. That’s pretty much the end of the 12 disciples in Mark. The original Mark ends when three women go to the tomb and find Jesus missing (as a reminder, the appearances of Jesus after the crucifixion in the last chapter of Mark were added in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, possibly to bring them into alignment with Matthew, Luke, and John). 

Question of the week. We’re gonna go all conspiracy theory here. In light of the description of the disciples, and the emphasis that three women discovered the empty tomb, is it possible that a woman wrote the gospel of Mark?

Why Was Jesus Executed?

~ Dana Horton ~ Leave a comment

Retraction. It did not take long for a few of our readers to point out an egregious error in last week’s edition. If you remember, we talked about the difficulty in knowing what really happened ‘back in the day’ because of errors in “translation from Arabic (the spoken word in Jesus’ area and time) to Greek to Latin to English.”

OMG. We said that Jesus’ language was Arabic when it was really Aramaic. The letters to the editor were overwhelming. And management at 3BT has had a word with the Quality Assurance supervisor. 

Moving on. We talked about Judas a few weeks back. But this week we focus on why Jesus was executed and what part Judas may have played in it. We don’t do theology here at 3BT (except for an occasional metaphysical rambling). So we will focus on the possible legal/political reasons behind it.

  • Was Jesus executed for calling himself the King of the Jews? All four gospels claim that Jesus called himself the King of the Jews. But all four gospels are also clear that Jesus never called himself King of the Jews in public before his trial and crucifixion.
  • Where did he say it then? He said it only among his inner circle — the 12 disciples. Why? Because he knew that if he made such a brash statement in public, the authorities (either the Romans or the Jewish Sanhedrin) would get all goosey and likely punish him.
  • Soooo, how did Pilate (or the Jewish Sanhedrin) make that connection?  Professor Bart Ehrman speculates that it was Judas who reported Jesus’ statements about being a King to the authorities. Judas would have been in the inner circle. And for whatever reason, which we will speculate on next week, he reports out.

It’s also worth noting that Jesus thought his return would be imminent — within the same lifetime as everybody present. But that’s a whole other rabbit trail for another Thursday.

Mark vs Luke on the Crucifixion

~ Dana Horton ~ Leave a comment

This week we are considering how Mark and Luke took the same basic story — the Crucifixion — and  described how Jesus reacted during the event in an entirely different manner.

Mark, the first Gospel written, portrays Jesus as being in deep agony as he goes to the cross. He beseeches God three times to get him out of this. He is mocked by both of the men hanging with him. Finally, at the end he says “My God, why have you forsaken me?”

Luke likely had Mark’s manuscript on the kitchen table when he was writing his version. Luke readily admits early on to having consulted other documents in preparing his Gospel. But in contrast to Mark, Luke says nothing about Jesus being sorrowful or distraught. Jesus asks only once for God to get him out, and even that included the qualifier “if it be your will.” On the cross, he asks God to forgive his transgressors. And only one of the robbers mocks him on the cross, while the other asks for help. 

Why did Luke make all those changes? Interpreters can only speculate. Maybe he wanted to give an example to Christians how they should face death in the face of persecution. But the main point is that Mark, Luke, John, and Matthew all have a different emphasis on what they say about Jesus. It’s not that one is right and another is wrong. It’s just that the Gospels are not to be treated as first-person eyewitness accounts of what happened 2,000 years ago.  

Much of the information above was from the book by Bart Ehrman entitled Misquoting Jesus:  The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. The Chief Editor finished it this week. It was worth looking into, although not a page-turner. Here are just a few of the reasons that the version of the Bible we pick up today may (or more likely may not) be exactly what was written down initially:

  • Translation from Arabic (the spoken word in Jesus’ area and time) to Greek to Latin to English.
  • Manual copying by scribes of various skill levels for centuries before the invention of the printing press.
  • Edits made by scribes and church leaders to make the texts read the way ‘they should have been written’.

OK, six bullets this week. But it’s still short.

How is the Gospel of John Different?

~ Dana Horton ~ Leave a comment

Question of the week:  What makes the Gospel of John and the epistles of John different from the other New Testament writings?

We’ll focus this week on the Gospel of John. 

  • The stories are different. Not all of them, but some.Only in John do we find the story about the Samaritan woman at the well, Jesus turning water into wine at a wedding, and raising Lazarus from the dead.
  • No parables. No pithy quotable quotes or stories. Rather, Jesus talks in longer discourses. We also get Jesus spending a lot of time emphasizing that he is the one sent from heaven. Reinforcing that view, Jesus’ miracles are described as ‘signs’ in order to prove that what Jesus says is true. This is in sharp contrast to several verses in the other three gospels, where Jesus asks people not to tell anyone after he performs a miracle.
  • Multiple authors? Chapter 21 (the final one) appears to be an add-on. It does not flow from the end of Chapter 20 and is written in a different style. Scholars speculate it was possibly added later to round out the stories of Jesus’ resurrection. And while we are talking about writing style, the entire prologue about Jesus being the Word of God is written in a completely different (poetic) style from the other chapters of John. John never calls Jesus the “Word” anywhere else. Was this another add on inserted by a cleric in the second century who liked poetry?

The more we dig into this stuff, the more fascinating it gets. The Chief Editor has been reading a book by Bart Ehrman entitled Misquoting Jesus:  The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. Today’s bullets were largely taken from Dr. Ehrman’s descriptions about John in this book. The big take-away from this book so far:  We have no original manuscripts of any books from the New Testament. The earliest fragment (and it is a fragment) is dated around 200 CE. So with all the hand-copying and ‘editing’ over the centuries, it’s hard to tell what the original texts actually said. 

Who Wrote Luke?

~ Dana Horton ~ Leave a comment

Question of the week:  Who wrote Luke?

The Chief Editor learned in his small town Sunday school class that Luke was a physician who traveled with Paul and wrote both the gospel of Luke and the Acts of the apostles. Where did that come from? 

  • It’s kinda in some of Paul’s letters, but not really. First, the letter to the Colossians mentions a physician that was a companion of Paul’s. The same letter also has a minor reference to a Gentile named Luke (it seemed important for the writer to note Luke was a Gentile). But there is never a sentence that puts the two together. Plus most Biblical scholars think Paul did not write Colossians anyway (another rabbit trail for future 3BTs). And the author of Luke/Acts never says who he is, other than implying he was a traveling companion of Paul, but probably not as seen in the next bullet.
  • OK, fine. So Luke was probably not a physician and may not have written the Gospel of Luke nor Acts. And while we’re at it, whoever wrote Acts got some of the sequences of events mixed up compared to what Paul writes. For example, in Galatians Paul says he did not go to Jerusalem after his vision on the road to Damascus. But in Acts it says he went straight to Jerusalem after the conversion to consult with ‘the boys.’ And there seems to be some confusion over whether Timothy was left in Athens or not. If there was really someone who was a traveling companion of Paul that wrote Luke/Acts, you’d think the record of occurrences would be more consistent.
  • What difference does it make? It’s part of trying to piece the puzzle together what really happened in that early development of Christianity in the 30-70 CE period. Whoever wrote Acts had an agenda — make it look like Paul and the other apostles got along famously and they all were on the same page when it came to preaching the good news. But Paul’s letters (Galatians in particular) are pretty clear he wanted to make a clean break from the Jewish ‘law’ as espoused by James and the apostles in Jerusalem. In Galatians, Paul swears he did not go back to Jerusalem after his conversion, in contradiction to Acts (which was written 20 years later). This means that either Paul a) wants to emphasize that his conversion and teachings are directly from God without interference by the brethren in Jerusalem, or b) Paul is … how should we say … stretching things a bit. The second choice seems unlikely, but it does beg the question of why it was important for Paul to write in Galatians 1:20 “In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie.” 

Question of the week:  What makes the Gospel of John and the epistles of John different from the other New Testament writings?