We talked a few weeks ago how the author of Luke/Acts was a huge fan of Paul. But when it came to Jesus’ brother James —- not so much. And the author of Luke doesn’t much care for any of Jesus’ family for that matter. What makes us think so?
Anonymous family members. Mark, the gospel written first, frequently mentions the brothers and sisters of Jesus, even naming them. Luke, despite having Mark open on the kitchen table as a reference, makes no mention of any of Jesus’ siblings by name. This is true even at the crucifixion scene, where Mark identifies Mary, the mother of James and Jesus. But Luke just says “the women” were there.
Jerusalem vs Galilee. Luke also wants to eliminate any association of Jesus and his followers with Galilee. In contrast to some of the other gospels, in Luke the followers of Jesus did not retreat to Galilee after Jesus’ death (Jesus even forbids the apostles to leave Jerusalem in Luke’s version). And he puts all the “sightings” of Jesus in Jerusalem.
Why’s that? To Luke Galilee represents the native, Jewish origins of Jesus and his family. It is also where the leadership of James apparently took root following Jesus’ death, with the influence of Mary his mother, Mary Magdalene, and Jesus’ other brothers. Galilee was also known, from the time of the Maccabees (c. 165 B.C.) as the center of political and religious unrest. Sooooo, if you recall from an earlier post, Luke was writing his gospel in the midst of the Jewish/Roman battles that resulted in the destruction of the Temple. And he wanted to be clear that the Jesus movement was not to be associated with any kind of rebel activity coming out of Galilee.
Most of this week’s observations are from a book entitled Paul and Jesus by James Tabor. Tabor also has a blog, which we have featured here before too.
Question of the week: Who wrote Luke?
More on Judas
Let’s continue down the rabbit trail on Judas. Last week we speculated about whether Judas was a real person, or whether the author of Mark invented him as a purely symbolic character in the first Christian public relations campaign with the Romans. Alternatively, the attached ‘Iscariot’ descriptor (they did not have last names back then) could indicate that Judas was a rebel trying to get Jesus to join the guerilla movement. One of our readers even noted the rebellion parallels to the character of Judas in Jesus Christ Superstar.
Let’s look at some other interesting things about Judas.
- What does Paul have to say about Judas? The short answer is nothing. Yep, nowhere in any of Paul’s letters is there a mention of Judas or the betrayal after the last supper. To make matters more interesting, in 1 Corinthians 15, Paul starts listing all the people Jesus appeared to after his resurrection: first to Cephas, then to the twelve, then to the 500 …..
- Wait a minute. Didn’t Judas die soon after the betrayal? If that was the case why would Paul write about 12 disciples in the post resurrection appearances? In the Gospels, it is clear that Jesus appeared to eleven disciples. And even though Paul did not have access to the gospels (they had not been written yet), we know from Galatians 1 that Paul spent time with Peter about three years after Jesus’ death. You woulda thought something like that would have come up while they were partaking of some good Middle Eastern wine and discussing the need for circumcision to become a Christian.
- Two different versions of Judas’ death. First, there is nothing about Judas’ death mentioned in Mark, Luke, or John. In Matthew he hangs himself. And in Acts there’s a strange description of Judas falling down in a field and his intestines falling out. So there’s that.
Judas — fact or fiction?
We’ll get back to Luke/Acts eventually. Last week we talked about how the Jewish/Roman war influenced the writing of all the Gospels. We also noted that Mark penned his book in the middle of the conflict … between the fall of Jerusalem and the final battle at Masada (approx 70-72 CE). And we left with two questions related to one of the main characters in Mark:
- What does the name Judas mean? Or to be more complete, what does the name Judas Iscariot mean?
- Why is that significant?
- How many Judas’s are there in the New Testament? Several. Obviously Judas Iscariot. Jesus had a brother named Judas. One of the other disciples was also named Judas. And there was a book in the New Testament written under the name Jude (or Judas), which apparently is not related to any of the other Judas’s.
- What about Iscariot? The most mundane explanation for Iscariot is that it might refer to a village named Kerioth where Judas could have come from. Or maybe not. Let’s go with conspiracy theory here. In Jesus’ day, one of the most aggressive of the Jewish rebel groups was called the “Sicarii”, which means “political assassins.” Notice the similarity to Iscariot? Hmmm. Many scholars believe the two are connected.
- Applying this symbolism to Mark. Bishop Shelby Spong believes that Mark invented the character of Judas Iscariot as a literary tool, not as an actual historical figure. Here’s the logic. After the fall of Jerusalem, the Jewish Christians wanted to make sure the Romans knew they (the Christians) were not part of the rebel Jews. One of the ways to do that was to create a story about how your leader (i.e. Jesus) was betrayed by a rebel Jew. This would demonstrate that both you and the Romans had a common enemy — i.e. the enemy of your enemy is your friend. Plus, to complete the definitions from above, Judas is the Greek spelling of Judah, the traditional name of the Jewish nation.
So file this away in the mental archives. This seems a little circumstantial, and many scholars take the opposite viewpoint that Judas was indeed a real person. But it might give you something to think about next Easter when you hear all about Judas betraying Jesus.
Paul slams the door on James
Last week we talked about the rift between Paul and the ‘pillars’ back in Jerusalem — James and Peter. This week we are going to talk a little more about James, especially how James is framed up in the book of Acts.
Both Luke and Acts were written by the same author, somewhere near the end of the first century.
- Why is that important? Because taken together, these two books appear to be historical narratives of Jesus and the early Christian movement after Jesus’ death. But if you look at these a little more closely, you can see the author had an agenda. And that agenda was to promote Paul as the true leader of the post-Jesus movement and downplay the importance of any other associates of Jesus, including Jesus’ own family.
- Say what? Acts acknowledges that James was the head of things early on. But you have to look for it. If you’re skimming along you’d barely recognize it, because there’s just one line saying that James was the head of the church in Jerusalem when Paul came to visit (probably around 55 CE). That’s it. James had been in charge of the early Christian movement (not called Christian at the time) for 25 years, and he barely gets a verse in chapter 9 of Acts. After that all references to James stop. And once Paul is introduced in chapter 9, the rest of the 24 chapters is all about Paul. Even Peter is somewhat marginalized, largely dropping out after chapter 12.
- Want more proof that James was supposed to be the head? We have mentioned the Gospel of Thomas in prior posts. It was one of those lost works that were found in a dig at Nag Hammadi back in the 1940s. Here is an interesting excerpt from this book: The disciples said to Jesus, “We know you will leave us. Who is going to be our leader then?” Jesus said to them, “No matter where you go you are to go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being.”
We have to stop here. But we’ve got a few more interesting things from Luke/Acts to talk about next week. Thanks for reading.
Paul and James come to fisticuffs
Question of the week: Who was in charge of the Christian movement before Paul?
The short answer: James (Jesus’ brother) and Peter. But there’s a little more to it than that.
- First, some important dates. Paul had his conversion experience around 35 CE. He was likely in his late 20s at that time. But he did not officially meet the boys in Jerusalem for 15 years after that, around 50 CE. That’s a pretty long time to go before meeting your boss.
- Why so long and why the meeting? Let’s just say Paul was going a little rogue on things. The conservative group in Jerusalem (led by James and Peter) followed Jesus’ teachings, but remained within the Jewish tradition. But Paul had his own version of the gospel that did not require strict adherence to Jewish laws. And he preached to those ne’er-do-wells — the Gentiles. Paul’s message is focused on the resurrection. He says nothing in any of his writings about the birth, life, or general teachings of Jesus.
- So Paul was essentially called on the carpet? Pretty much. And things did not go well. The book of Acts makes it seem like they all had a meeting of the minds in 50 CE. But Acts was written almost 50 years after those events took place. Plus, in Paul’s letters he repeatedly says things about ‘the pillars’ in Jerusalem that indicate there was a major rift between the two.
Next week: Why did the Christian movement essentially embrace Paul and not James and Peter?
Where did Luke get his material?
Clarification. First, a bit of a clarification from last week’s post on John the Baptist and his attire. The Chief Editor failed to hit the delete button on one of the sentences about what John wore. One sentence said he had a hairy coat of camel’s hair and shorts. The other sentence omitted the shorts. One of our astute readers noticed the difference and asked if there was any significance in the difference (ya never know about all these nuances we keep finding in the Bible). Alas, it was merely an oversight by our Quality Assurance department in proofing the final version. We have spoken firmly to the department manager.
We appreciate these observations — it keeps us diligent.
Back to this week’s focus — Luke and Acts. Luke and Acts were written sometime between 80-100 CE, 30+ years after Paul’s letters and even 10+ years after the first Gospel Mark.
If Luke was written so long after Paul’s letters and Mark’s Gospel, where did he get his material? There are three sources for Luke’s material.
- First, both Matthew and Luke take a lot of material straight from Mark. But Mark’s account is pretty sparse — no birth story and his Easter story ends with the women finding an empty tomb. Editor’s note: The last several verses in Mark recording the appearances of Jesus to the disciples were written in much later by someone else who didn’t like the unexciting ending.
- Second, both Matthew and Luke added a number of Jesus’ sayings from a theoretical document called Q. Why theoretical? Because Archaeologists have not actually found this document. Nevertheless, both Luke and Matthew contain almost verbatim many of the same sayings of Jesus. None of these sayings are in Mark or John. So Bible scholars have concluded that there must have been another document floating around in the first century that both Matthew and Luke utilized. (Q stands for a German word that means ‘source.’)
- Third, and this is where we get even more gray, there is Luke’s subjectivity. Luke was written after the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. The Jewish people were under a lot of pressure from Rome — not a good time to be writing inflammatory literature. Consequently, we see in Luke a lot of backpedaling on how the Romans treated Jesus in comparison to Mark. Pontius Pilate wasn’t such a bad guy in Luke. There is no mocking or scourging by the Roman soldiers in Luke, compared to Mark. Plus (and this will lead to next week), the author of Luke/Acts was a big proponent of Paul, who was a Roman citizen.
Question of the week: If Paul did not come along until 20+ years after the death of Jesus, who was in charge in the interim?
Most of this week’s observations are from a book entitled Paul and Jesus by James Tabor. Tabor also has a blog, which we have featured here before too.
Was John the Baptist a Hairy Man?
Many of us were taught in Sunday School that John the Baptist was the fore-runner to Jesus. The visual is that John graciously stepped aside when Jesus came along, as he clearly recognized that Jesus was the Messiah and John was just the messenger. But there’s a new book by Joel Marcus that claims that Is not the case. The book is called John the Baptist in History and Theology. This week’s bullets come from a summary of this book.
- Verification? The usual story is in the gospel of John, where John the B baptizes Jesus, and then God says that this is my beloved son, and it’s all pretty obvious. But both Matthew and Luke have accounts that indicate John the B was not convinced. Specifically, John was put in prison at the end of his life before being beheaded. While there, he sends messengers to Jesus asking him if he is the Messiah. Ummm, why did John need to get clarification if that whole Messiah question was settled at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry?
- Who did John think of himself as? John thought he was the return of the Old Testament prophet Elijah. Stay with us here. In the Old Testament story, Elijah was taken up to heaven while still alive. Because Elijah had not really died, he was expected to return at the end of the age. And John thought he was the embodiment of that return.
To further make his point, the author offers the following logical argument: Elijah is described in 2 Kings 1:8 as a hairy man wearing leather shorts. In the Gospels John is described as a man wearing leather shorts and a coat of camel’s hair. But the Gospels say John just wore a hairy coat. Why the difference? Because John must not have had much hair, yet wanted to model himself as much as possible on Elijah.
How do you know that? OK, we were not there. But if the Gospel writers had instead invented the description of John out of whole cloth, they would have portrayed him as a hairy man, exactly like Elijah. This makes a logical case that the description of him wearing a hairy garment probably reflects the historical record.
- Interesting, but how did that affect his relationship with Jesus? If John thought of himself as Elijah, he may have seen his star pupil Jesus not as the Messiah but as Elisha, the successor figure who inherited a double portion of Elijah’s spirit when the latter was taken up to heaven. John thought of himself as ‘the man’ who spoke of atonement, salvation, and spiritual blessing. After him there would be only a mopping up operation–the Messiah (not Jesus) would arrive to enact judgment, separating the wheat (those sealed by John’s baptism for salvation) from the chaff, and consuming the latter in unquenchable fire.
Is this stuff fun or what?
Was Paul a Misogynist or a Feminist?
This week we take up the debate in Christian circles about whether Paul was supportive of women in the church, or whether he thought women should be subservient to men.
- Equality for Women. In Corinthians and Acts we see certain passages where Paul says women should be able to teach in the church. Paul also talks about everyone being equal in the eyes of God. Further, Paul was big on sexual abstinence. Although that was not a big selling point for men, it likely appealed to more women at that time because of the male-dominant cultural expectations within the home.There is even a second-century novelistic work called The Acts of Paul and Thecla. As the plot develops, Thecla’s fiancé (in cahoots with her mother, who is set to lose a prosperous retirement from the deal) turns on her and prosecutes her, eventually seeking her execution. Ultimately, Thecla wins out and gets to follow Paul. Yes, it is a fictional account, but written by an author who must have believed that Paul had certain pro-feminism leanings.
- Segregation for Women. The epistle Timothy is filled with references about keeping women in a subservient position. It’s pretty hard to argue the intentions of these passages from I Timothy 2:8-15:
Therefore I want the men everywhere to pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or disputing. I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.
A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
- Which is it? There’s a problem here: Timothy was not written by Paul, but by someone else (apparently not liking what was happening the the early church) who wanted to claim the authority of Paul. Unfortunately, over the centuries, not many of the antagonists who argue against the power of women in the church likely know that Paul’s letter to Timothy was … a … forgery.
Deuteronomy was not written by Moses
Deuteronomy was written by someone that scholars call “D.” It was not written by Moses.
- Why couldn’t it have been written by Moses? Because it was written around 600-700 BCE and Moses lived somewhere around 1300 BCE. Scholars were able to estimate the date because in 2 Kings there is a story about finding a “book of the law” during the reign of king Josiah – a real king who reigned in that 600-700 BCE time period.
- What is significant about Deuteronomy? It contains page after page of laws to live by. In theory these laws were dictated by Moses. But there’s a problem in that some of the laws in Deuteronomy differ from the laws as dictated by Moses in other parts of the Bible. The priests who ultimately put together the first five books of the Old Testament solved this by giving “D” his own book, saying it was the second giving of the law by Moses.
- What are some of the laws that are different in Deuteronomy? The most significant one is that the main worship needs to be in central place (i.e. Jerusalem). That solidified the Jewish religious hierarchy with Jerusalem as the center. Here are some other interesting ones:
- First born males are to be offered to God.
- Debt relief in seventh year.
- Newly-married women are not to be slandered (22:13-21)
- No religious prostitution. (23:17-18)
- Women are to be modest. (25:11-12)
- Bonus bullet. What are some of the laws that are similar to other parts of the Bible?
- No human sacrifice.
- No disfiguring yourself during mourning.
- Lists of clean and unclean animals.
- No eating of roadkill (Deut 14:21)
- No marrying your step-mother (22:30)
The Chief Editor offered the above lists without commentary. The readers may supply their own.
Why was the book of Jonah written?
We’ll take a break from the authors of the Old Testament this week because we ran across a fascinating essay by Bishop Shelby Spong on the book of Jonah that is worth three bullets.
A brief refresher, for those of us who have not cracked open an Old Testament text since fifth grade. God told Jonah to go preach to the people at Nineveh. Jonah gave God a head fake and took off in a different direction in a boat. A storm came up, Jonah was tossed overboard by the captain, swallowed by a fish (the author did not know about whales), then spit up on the shore of Nineveh three days later. Reluctantly, Jonah offers some emotionless commentary to the people about turning away from their bad behavior. Surprisingly, they loved the message anyway, begin to follow God’s direction, and hold potlucks on Sunday after service. With that summary, here’s your three bullets:
- When was Jonah written? It was written after the Jewish people were allowed to return to Jerusalem a hundred or so years after the Babylonians had defeated them and carted most of them off to Babylonia. Let’s call it around 400 BCE.
- Why is that important? Because although the majority of the Jewish people were taken away to Babylon, a few were left behind. And despite all good intentions, they inter-married with some of the local ‘unclean’ Gentiles. When the other Jews returned from Babylon, they decided to lay the blame on the defeat of Jerusalem directly on these Gentiles and their Jewish/Gentile offspring. Things were getting pretty ugly.
- Sooo Nineveh is Jerusalem? Yep. Except the author of Jonah couldn’t step up to the podium on the Sabbath and directly criticize the Jewish leaders because … well … he’d probably be shown the gate along with the Jewish/Gentile offspring. So this unknown author wrote a tall tale that was entertaining on the surface, but contained a universal message of God’s acceptance of all peoples, even those irascible Gentiles and their offspring.
We’re pretty sure there’s also all kinds of metaphysical and symbolic stuff buried in Jonah. (e.g. three day symbolism). But we’re gonna stop here for now.
Three Bullet Thursday 