IMAGINE the MANGER

Spoiler Alert: Not Your Parents' Manger Scene.

I've been wondering what seems to be missing from the manger scenes that I see everywhere this season, and I've finally put my finger on it: there's no children! Or if there is, it will be one child who happens to be part of a group of adoring shepherds.

I went searching for a depiction of children at the manger and found only this one above. It's not great, but it's still touching. The manger, ox, Mary & Joseph, and baby Jesus are all credible first century depictions. But the child-angels at crib-side?

If Mary had seen angels and told Luke about it, he surely would have included that in his Gospel. My theory on this picture is that the three center children are from 1950's USA and are being given a tour of the manger scene. The angels are holding them by the hand because they will soon conduct them back to 1950 where their clothes will fit the era. Mary and Joseph do not see them.

So you ask, "Why should there be children in a manger scene?"

What Should Be in a Manger Scene?

While I was searching and wondering, out of the blue my new fb friend Jeab posted this one. It's incomplete, of course, but it's a very good start. First of all, it starts with a cave as a backdrop. I quote from the 1999 Nelson's New Illustrated Bible Manners & Customs (p.421):

In the second century a tradition existed that Jesus' birth had occurred in a certain cave that had been behind the inn. ... The argument that the traditional cave [seen today by tourists] is too small to be used as a stable is not very strong because its present divisions into sections is misleading.  ...  [Emperor Constantine] ordered construction in AD 326 of a church over the revered cave. ... The present Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem stands over [the] cave which has been revered since the second century as the birthplace of Jesus. It may indeed be the place where Jesus was born.

Now as to the sheep: It is unthinkable that the shepherds who heard from the band of angels would drive their flock into the cave where Mary was sheltering her new-born son. Plus, the hosting town-dwellers (or innkeepers) were not shepherds themselves and would not have had sheep except perhaps a male lamb which had been purchased to sacrifice at the annual Passover observance. But if the visiting shepherds had a very young lamb which had been orphaned, they might have carried it in with them to protect it. On the other hand, the presence of one or more goats is a distinct possibility, to provide milk for the town-dwellers (or for the guests at the inn).

A single donkey is often seen in manger scenes. It is presumably the donkey that Mary rode from Nazareth to Bethlehem. It has been argued that the donkey was unnecessary because a healthy young pregnant women of the day could have walked the distance with little problem. Never having been nine months pregnant, I cannot venture an opinion on whether walking or riding a donkey would be more uncomfortable in that condition. I do know that my oldest son was born ten weeks premature because his mother insisted on driving alone from Phoenix to Miami. She made it as far as San Antonio. So I can attest that travelling great distances when very pregnant is fraught with danger.

The ox so often seen implies that Mary and family have not arrived on the premises of an innkeeper, but rather that of a townsperson who owns a plot of farmland outside town, and needs the ox to pull the plow. I suppose there were other uses for oxen, such as pulling a merchant's cart.

Sometimes I see dogs and cats in manger scenes. The dog I can vouch for, because surely shepherds had sheep dogs in use to control their flocks. Cats I'm not so sure of. When Mary and family get to Egypt they will find cats commonly domesticated. But in Palestine, I don't know if any traces of domesticated cats have been found by archaeologists.

Of course, the biggest no-no is to show both shepherds and Magi ("wise men)" in a manger scene. The Magi did not arrive until well after the birth, perhaps as long as two years later, while the shepherds were there within a day of Jesus' birth.

And now to children.

Christmas is about children, starting with the child Jesus. In our days, that is even more true. The exchange of gifts among adults can hardly lay a candle beside the wondrous eyes of children as they arise on Christmas. Just like Passover, children belong in the Christmas scene. Like Passover, it gives us an opportunity to teach them about what God has done in their lives, and who Jesus really is.

We started out at the top by affirming a second-century tradition that Jesus was born in a cave. Another well-attested second century tradition is that the four brothers and two or three sisters of Jesus were the children of a previous marriage by Joseph. Three apocryphal documents of the second century refer to Joseph's elder children as if everyone already knew that as fact. 

Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph at the time of the angel's appearance to her. I believe that the two were married shortly after Joseph became aware of Mary's pregnancy. Small-town residents know how to count nine months very well, and even an immediate marriage would spark whispered rumors.

With up to seven children, there is a very good chance that the youngest was an infant or toddler. In fact childbirth was a not uncommon cause of death among women of the first century, and the combination of a new baby without a mother would have pushed Joseph inexorably toward a second marriage. While he would have had to employ a wet-nurse at first, Mary's first tasks as a new bride would have included mothering infants and toddlers.

The oldest child of Jesus was probably James, who later became known as James the Just and was the leader of the church in Jerusalem after Jesus's crucifixion. If his siblings were spaced two years apart, as was common, James would be over 14 years old at the birth of Jesus. His new stepmother Mary would have been barely a year or two older that he. Imagine the issues that may have arisen in this  blended family!

In any case, it's likely that Jesus' older stepbrothers and stepsisters were present at the manger scene. If James were 14, he would have been considered an adult, required to register for the poll tax just as Joseph was. The youngest may have been barely one year old.

And think of Mary. We admire Mary for her submission to the call of God on her life, to birth the savior of the world and brave the scandal of conceiving a child without having been married. I admire her also for her acceptance of this challenging new job of managing a large family of children while Joseph earned his living as a construction worker.

Perhaps Mary came from a large family as well. In any case, the Christmas story is as much about Mary as about Jesus, for this young woman stepped in and did what was needed in obedience to a loving God.

I love this picture of Mary's family in a cave. The children are attentive in case there is anything that needs to be done to help. And Mary is blessed not only by God, but also by her husband and step-children.

Hail, Mary, full of grace.

Was Bethsaida Actually the Pagan City of Julias?

The answer is No... and Yes.

But first we need to know more about Livia Julia, Herod Philip, and what year it is.

The Sea of Galilee seen from Bethsaida.

Livia Drusilla Julia Augustus

That's a mouthful for a name, and there's a complex story of how she got it. Her birth name was Livia and her father was Marcus Livius Drusus Claudianus, a senator of the Roman Republic in the first century BC. "Drusilla" is a diminutive for Drusus. She was born about 58 BC, and was married about 43 BC to Tiberius Claudius Nero, her cousin of patrician status who was fighting alongside Julius Caesar and Mark Antony against Octavian. In 42 BC she gave birth to the future emperor Tiberius and then a second son. But she ended up on the wrong side of that war when Octavian prevailed as part of the new Triumvirate ruling Rome, and she fled with her family to Sicily.

When peace came and an amnesty was declared, Livia returned to Rome with her first son (pregnant with her second), and was personally introduced to Octavian in 39 BC. Legend has it that Octavian fell instantly in love with her, despite the fact that both he and Livia were already married. He immediately divorced his pregnant wife and persuaded or forced Livia's husband to divorce her. Within days, he married Livia, with her ex-husband giving her in marriage as if he were her father. (Important political liaisons between patrician families may be a more rational explanation for these actions.)

The rest of the Triumvirate fell away, and Octavian was left as sole emperor. He took for himself the honor-title of Augustus. Livia and Augustus remained married for the next 51 years. However, they had no children of their own, which caused a problem in accession to the Roman throne. Augustus solved that by adopting Livia's two sons, making them successors to power in Rome. Augustus died in AD 14 and was made a god by the senate. In his  will, Augustus adopted Livia into the Julian family and gave her the honor-title of Augusta. Thus her new name became Julia Augusta.

Julia was portrayed as a woman of proud and queenly attributes, faithful and skillful as consort, mother, and later widow and dowager. She was a prime recipient of the emperor-adulation cultivated by Augustus, and became the idealization of Roman feminine qualities and eventually a goddess-like representation of virtue. She was the first woman to appear on Roman coins, and her coins may be dated by her hairstyles, which kept up with the times. She didn't wear excess jewelry or pretentious costumes, took care of the household and her husband (even to the extent of making his clothes), faithful and dedicated. In 35 BC Augustus gave her the honor of ruling her own finances and dedicated a public statue to her. She had her own protégés and clients that she pushed into political office, including the grandfathers of two later emperors. She was truly the "First Lady" of Rome, and an advisor to her emperor-husband.

At Augustus' death her son Tiberius became Emperor and before too long Julia became known as the power behind the throne. At first she and her son got along well. In AD 24 Tiberius granted his mother a theater seat among the Vestal Virgins. She exercised unofficial but very real power in Rome. Eventually Tiberius became resentful of his mother's political status, particularly the idea that his mother had given him the throne. Ancient historians say that Tiberius retired to the island of Capri because he could no longer endure his mother.

Julia died in AD 29 amid the scandal of her disaffection with her son. But later her honor was restored, and she was deified as The Divine Augusta. A statue of her was set up in the Temple of Augustus, races were held in her honor, and women were to invoke her  name in their sacred oaths.

Herod Antipas and Herod Philip

Philip was one of the sons of Herod the Great. Most of Herod's family were sent to Rome for their education and for learning the ways and political habits of the Romans. Two of his sons came to special prominence: Herod Antipas and Herod Philip, both of whom came into power about 4 BC at the death of their father.

Herod Antipas is the biblical Herod that interacted with Jesus and with John the Baptist. He was the tetrarch (ruler of a quarter) of Galilee on the west bank of the Sea of Galilee, and Perea on the east bank of the Dead Sea. He ruled for about 42 years.

Antipas' most noted construction was a capital city for Galilee, on the shore of its sea. He named it Tiberias to honor his patron Tiberius, who succeeded as emperor of Rome in 14 AD. Warm bathing springs were nearby, and the city included a stadium, palace, and prayer sanctuary. However, Jews at first refused to live in it because it was built over an ancient graveyard, and Antipas had to bring in foreigners, forced migrants, poor people, and freed slaves to populate it. The city lent its name to the adjoining lake, and for centuries maps showed the Lake of Tiberias rather than the Sea of Galilee.

Herod Philip is mentioned in the Bible only at Luke 3:4. There he is identified as the tetrarch of Iturea and Trachonitis, which lay to the north and east of the Sea of Galilee and included the fishing town of Bethsaida. He never used the family title "Herod" to refer to himself. About AD 34 he married Salomé, the famous dancing girl involved in the death of John the Baptist, and he died before AD 37.

Philip's most noted construction was his Greek-style modernization of Caesarea Philippi, to which he gave his own name so as to differentiate if from Caesarea on the Mediterranean coast. In AD 30 he renamed Bethsaida to Julias, in honor of the mother of Emperor Tiberius, and gave it the title of a Roman polis. There he had begun Greek-style modernization with the building of a stadium and other structures. Some Christian reference materials say that he named it Julias in honor of a certain daughter of Augustus, but this is incorrect. It is also said that he used the name Julias to curry favor with Rome, which is possible. But we must also remember that Philip was educated in Rome during the reign of Augustus with his consort Julia and he may well have been impressed with that particularly formidable woman.

Bethsaida: What Year Is This, Anyway?

Now we are armed with enough background material to tackle the question at hand: was Bethsaida a sleepy little Jewish fishing town with a synagogue, or a bustling Greek-style city with a pagan temple?

Bethsaida was home to five apostles—far more than any other New Testament town. And it was the target of Jesus’ “Woe” saying in which he lashes out at Bethsaida and two other towns for their failure to repent (Matthew 11:21). But where was Bethsaida?

Archeologists conducted digs at three mounds near the Galilee’s northern shore. Only one had ruins old enough to be biblical Bethsaida. The State of Israel and many scholars accepted this identification, though some controversy lingers, for the mound lies a mile from the shoreline.

But here they uncovered a fisherman’s house that was used in Jesus’s day. They also unearthed the walls of a 20- by 65-foot building. Was it a synagogue? To judge by other finds, Bethsaida was a majority Jewish town. But this structure had no benches or other hallmarks of an early synagogue.

Instead, the archaeologists discovered evidence of pagan worship: bronze incense shovels like those found in Roman temples and votive objects in the shape of boat anchors and grape clusters. Also they found terra-cotta figurines of a woman who resembled Julia, the wife of the Roman Emperor Augustus and mother of Tiberius, who came to the throne in the year AD 14.

It didn’t make sense. The Romans did regard their rulers as both human and divine, worshiping them as deities. But Herod the Great and his son Antipas didn’t build pagan structures in Judea or Galilee, and they kept their faces off the local coins.

However, Bethsaida lay northeast of the Galilee border in a region that was home to gentile villages and ruled by another of Herod’s sons, Philip, the only Jew of that time to put his face on a coin. In the year 30 Philip dedicated Bethsaida to Julia, who had died the year before.

Did he build a pagan temple to the emperor’s mother? Jews lived here. Did their ruler Philip, himself a Jew, erect a temple to a Roman goddess in their very midst? And did he do so in the same period when Jesus was visiting Bethsaida? A writer for Smithsonian thinks that was possible (see link below). Did some of the fishermen—such as Peter, Andrew, Philip, James and John—look at that pagan temple and say, “Enough!”? Did Jesus come along, offering what looked like a clearer path back to God?

There is a slight timing problem with this thinking: Jesus’ ministry most likely took place in the three or four years before AD 30, and John the Baptist had already been killed by then. I find it unlikely that Philip would have built this temple before dedicating the town to Julia. But even without the temple, it might be possible that adulation of the exemplary character of Julia had spread this far from Rome many years before Jesus began his ministry.

In any case, the infusion of pagan culture into Jewish territory was a distinct problem for the time of the disciples, and while sleepy little Nazareth was off by itself, some six miles from a major pagan town, Bethsaida was at the bulls-eye of a planned city where pagans would be moving in next door to Jewish fishermen.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/unearthing-world-jesus-180957515/#qmphwsBYeKhtPufU.99

Are there Terrorists in the Bible?

Did New Testament People Experience Terrorism?

Centuries before there was an Assassin's Guild in the Middle East or mercenary Ninjas in Japan, there was a society of Terrorists which began its life among Jews in the vicinity of Palestine. In Latin they were called Sycarii (dagger-men). They are thought to have been a subset of the better-known Zealots, one of whom was an Apostle of Jesus, who struggled against the Roman overlords. The origin of the Zealots and their murderous cousins, the Sycarii, traces back to the political turmoil in Judea in the year AD 6.

Israel and the Romans

First, some background: After shaking off their Greek overlords, post-exile Israel became a more-or-less independent kingdom with the blessing of Rome. In AD 63 the Roman general Pompey intervened in their civil war by conquering Jerusalem, and appointed Hrycanus II as high priest. Then in AD 41 Mark Antony, who had been one of Julius Caesar's generals, appointed Herod the Great and his brother as client kings over the region. Yet another civil war saw Herod the Great go to Rome and be appointed as king to restore Hyrcanus II to the high priesthood.

Herod ruled until 4 BC, and at his death the Romans divided his kingdom among four of his children. Herod Archelaus became "ethnarch" of Judea, Samaria, and Idumea (biblical Edom). But Archelaus was over his head as administrator and was removed by the Romans in AD 6. Judea and Samaria were not to have a king, but instead were placed under a series of "prefects' (governors) appointed from Rome.

Judas the Galilean

AD 6 was a troubled time for the Jews. Not only had they lost their status as a client kingdom, but also a "census" had been declared, which meant that every person was going to be taxed. Using Roman money. With "graven images." Many Jews took exception to that, and some were incensed, vowing that they would never touch "unclean" Roman money. They became known as "zealots" for the Law of Moses.

Judas the Galilean took violent exception, and led a fierce revolt in which he was killed and his followers were scattered (Acts 5:37) as far as Egypt and Syria. Although Judas led the rebellion, he would not be classed as a terrorist, for his targets were the Roman overlords, which the Jews viewed as an occupying force in their native land. But at least 2,000 Jews were crucified by the Romans as punishment for supporting the rebellion, not to mention those that died in combat against the Roman army.

There was little that the survivors could do in retaliation. It is thought that the Jews boycotted the purchase of Roman pottery about this time, because the characteristic red clay pottery of Rome disappears from Palestine archaeological sites after AD 6.

The Sicarii

Clearly this was an unacceptable result for many. The Zealots remained as a recognized group, and were marked as strict adherents to the Law of Moses who would refuse to handle Roman money. But the more violent revolutionaries went underground, and began carrying concealed daggers.

The Sicarii's targets were primarily other Jews considered to be collaborators with the Romans, or quiescent in the face of Roman rule. They attacked Jewish notables and elites associated with the priesthood, whom they considered as benefitting from the overlords.

During festivals they would mingle with the crowds, and stab their enemies with their short daggers. When their victims fell, they would join in the cries of indignation and pretend to be helping to find the perpetrators, thus avoiding detection themselves. I consider that since their violence was politically motivated rather than military action against Roman soldiers, they may aptly be called terrorists.

Some Bible commentators have alleged that Judas, Man of Kerioth (Jesus' betrayer), was a Sicari. I find this unlikely. First, Judas was assigned the task of carrying the money purse, which would have included Roman coins with images on them--a task which would have been anathema to a zealot or a sicari. And second, Judas betrayed Jesus by collaborating with the priestly class at Jerusalem, the very people-group who were bitterly opposed by the sicarii.

These terrorists are mentioned in the Bible once  at Acts 22:38, when Paul is arrested by the Roman commander of the Jerusalem garrison. He says to Paul, "Do you know Greek? Then you are not the Egyptian who some time ago stirred up a revolt and led the four thousand men of the Sicarion out into the wilderness?" (Sicarion is the Greek plural for dagger-bearers. Your Bible may translate this as "assassins.")

One or two terrorists is scary enough. This Roman commander speaks of having to deal with four thousand of them at one time. And yes, there are terrorists in the Bible.

Did Jesus have Younger Brothers?

Did Joseph and Mary birth four more sons and two or three daughters?

In the Protestant world, Jesus' mother had more kids.

This idea drives the Catholic world nuts. They hold to the long-standing tradition that Mary the mother of Jesus remained a virgin after Jesus' birth. But academics and most protestants follow a more literalist reading of the Bible. How did we get into such a place as this?

Tanker-loads of ink have been spilled over this discussion, which began in earnest in the fourth century AD. I will try to stick to the basics, then present the view I follow, supported in part by a respected Bible scholar in England.

The Helvidian View:

Helvidius was a writer who penned an opinion prior to AD 383 that Joseph and Mary had additional children after the miraculous conception and birth of Jesus. He supported his opinion by the "solid evidence" of the Biblical mentions of "sisters" and "brothers" of Jesus. He cited support for his view from the writings of Tertullian (AD 155-240), a prolific author sometimes called the Father of Latin Christianity; and also from writings of Saint Victorinus of Pettau (AD 270).

This view was resurrected by the reformers after Martin Luther, who maintained that the language of the Bible concerning brothers and sisters of Jesus trumped the traditional western Catholic view. Their view has also been supported in the academic realm, at least from the mid-1850's through the present.

The Heironymian View

Saint Jerome (Latin Hieronymus, AD 347-420) was upset by Helvidius' view, for he and other Fathers of the Church held that Mary mother of Jesus remained a virgin throughout her life. Jerome proposed that the "brothers" and "sisters" were actually cousins of Jesus, and through his influence this became the traditional western Catholic view.

Scholars complained vociferously about this. If Jesus' relatives were step-brothers or half-brothers or adopted brothers, the Greek language lacked a specific word for the relationship, and "brothers" would have to do. But if they were cousins, there is a perfectly good Greek word for that, anepsios, which Paul deploys for the relationship between Barnabas and John Mark (Col. 4:10).

Part of the defense of this view depends on the relationships between the followers of Jesus present at the crucifixion, identifying a "Mary" there as mother of James and Joses, common names which recur in the list of Jesus' brothers. This Mary is then identified as the wife of one Cleopas deemed to be the same as Alpheus, two Greek names which purportedly arise from the same Aramaic original name. Recent scholarship has found a different Aramaic name which is the more likely root word from which Cleopas is derived, casting doubt on the identification of these two names referring to the same person.

The Epiphanian View

Around the same time as all this, one Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis in Cyprus (AD 315-403) promoted a third theory. The Epiphanian view is that these brothers and sisters were children of Joseph by a marriage prior to his marriage to Mary. This is also the traditional view in Eastern Orthodox churches. The idea that Joseph was already advanced in age by the time he married Mary had some currency in the early Church.

New Support for Epiphanius

As a scholar specializing on the book of Jude I take special interest in the brothers of Jesus. The title "Jude" does not occur in the original Greek of the New Testament. Instead, Jude verse one has the real name Judas, which has been softened in English because of the scandal of Judas of Kerioth, the betrayer of Jesus. The writer of the book identifies himself as a brother of James, no doubt meaning James the brother of Jesus.

The names of Jesus' brothers, then,  are James, Joseph/Joses, Simon, and Jude/Judas, all quite common names in New Testament Palestine. Two out of the four brothers have written books of the Bible. Names of Jesus' sisters come from later tradition as Mary, Salome, and possibly Anna. Matthew and Mark attest to all four brothers by name. All four gospels refer to the brothers of Jesus, while Matthew and Mark mention the sisters. Paul in his letters refers to Jesus' brothers twice:

James Bauckham, professor of New Testament and prolific author, has written a journal article (Themelios 21.2, January 1996: 18-21.) and a book (Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church, 1990) on this subject. He finds that for the first two centuries of the Church, the idea that Jesus' siblings were offspring of Joseph by a previous marriage was taken for granted.

These are "apocryphal" documents, meaning they are not accepted for inclusion in the Bible. Some apocryphal documents were written to support theological inventions that had been rejected, such as the Coptic Gospel of Thomas. This was written to promote the "gnostic" theology that had arisen primarily in Egypt. It may have been influential in the choice of the word "catholic" (received by all) to defend the early mainline church that fostered western Catholicism and eastern Orthodoxy.

Other early Christian apocrypha was written primarily for its entertainment value. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas is surely such a document. It is a fanciful piece of fiction that tries to show what the infancy and childhood of Jesus may have been like. One of my favorite pieces of fiction from the third century AD is the first chapter of The Acts of Thomas, in which Jesus appears and commands Thomas to evangelize in India. Thomas resists, saying "Send me somewhere else!"  Jesus then talks to a boat captain, who then comes over to talk to Thomas, saying "Is that your master over there?" Thomas says yes, and the captain says, "Well, he just sold you to me, and you're going with me to India."

Like some of these early Christian writers, I am writing historical fiction, but I start with the facts as found in the Bible, and go on to fill in the unknown blanks, such as, "Why is John Zebedee down by the Jordan calling himself a disciple of the Baptist instead of back at home fishing with his father?"

And Jesus' brothers and sisters? I found Bauckham's arguments persuasive. He concludes that both the Helvidian and Epiphanian views are acceptable solutions to the sibling questions, and both of them are in concordance with the rest of the Bible evidence. For myself, I follow the latter view, that Jesus' siblings were the progeny of a previous marriage. I build on that with the possibility that his first wife died after her sixth or seventh child, possibly in childbirth, and Joseph needed a new wife to take care of the babies.

If these kinds of things interest you, dear reader, you may want to read one of my books. The series on the teenage John Zebedee has already started and can be found by punching my name into Amazon.

 

Desert Dunking: 2,000 years ago & next week.

Where did the Baptist dunk Jesus?

Winter, AD 27

Sorry, I don't know. And nobody else knows, either.

But I'm going to be doing some self-dunking wayyy out in the desert next week, and I'm distracted. I looked into John's baptism spot and found more claimants than you can shake a stick at. So I'll give you an overview of John's sweet spot, and then I'll give you a peek into my sweet spot for next week's dunkings.

Where did John Baptize Jesus?

Ready? Okay, jump into the time travel machine with me. Our first stop is 1200 BC. Gideon has been selected by God to judge Israel, and his first job is to kick out all the Midianites who had been oppressing Israel (Judges chapter 7). God gives him victory in battle and Gideon rouses up the tribe of Ephraim to chase them back over the Jordan River. They chase them as far as Beth-Bara and capture their kings. Now Beth-Bara is Hebrew for "place of the [river] crossing," likely a shallow ford where the water won't sweep you away. But since Beth also means "house," this could be the housing location of a ferry-boat crossing. Starting from Ephraim's territory going east, the most likely spot would be the river crossing near Jericho (not far from Jerusalem) where God parted the waters to bring the Israelites into Canaan.

Why did I just say all that? Hang on, I'll get to that. But remember Beth-Bara.

Back to the time machine. This time you set the dial for AD 27, when Jesus gets baptized. (Remember that Jesus was born in 4-5 BC, so he's about 31-32 years old.) Click forward a couple months on the time machine and we find Jesus inviting his first disciples to a wedding in Cana. They walk to Cana (couldn't hail a taxi) and get there on the third day, before the wine was poured.

Now if John was baptizing near Jericho, Cana is a fur piece--some sixty miles if you're a winged creature, and considerably farther if you're a biped. So maybe John was baptizing a bit closer to Jesus' home territory of Galilee. Hang with me, we'll get back to this also.

Time machine time: Set the dial for AD 90. Here we find John the Evangelist (I say he's the same  as John the Apostle) writing his magnificent Gospel. The other three Gospels have been out in print for 30 years or so, but none of the other evangelists have thought that the location of Jesus' baptism was important enough to tell us about it. And then, and then, and then, along comes John, and he tells us that "these things took place in Bethany beyond the Jordan" (John 1:28, NASB).

But wait a minute. My beloved KJV says that "these things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan." What's going on here? For the full answer--or at least a hint--we will have to hop back in to the time machine.

Set the dial for AD 220. Here we find a man named Origen, who's one of the ancient Fathers of the Church. He's got the gospels in his hand, and he's using them as a gazetteer--a written atlas--and he's touring the Holy Land trying to find all the places where Jesus stepped foot. (Not recommended, by the way--the gospels were written to teach us the Kingdom of God, not a history or geography lesson.) But Origen can't find any such place as "Bethany beyond Jordan."

Now hold still--this won't hurt, I promise. We're going to do a lesson in "Textual Criticism." Now Origen has seen many copies of John's Gospel, and nearly all of them said "Bethany beyond Jordan," but a couple of them say Bethabara." Not only that, but Origen's translation for Bethabara is "House of Preparation," which he thinks is a quite fortuitous name for the site of Jesus' baptism. (His translation is wrong, but never mind that.) Origen adopts Bethabara as the "more accurate" reading, and others began to follow his teaching. Those others include John Chrysostom, another Father of the Church, some 60 years later. Chrysostom says, "Bethany is neither beyond the Jordan, nor in the desert, but is somewhere near Jerusalem," so that is not logical.

So most of the earliest and best manuscripts say "Bethany," while a few others, supported by  two venerable fathers of the church, say "Bethabara." Which shall we choose? The textual criticism test is this: If the original autograph that John the Evangelist wrote said "Bethabara," why would anyone change it to "Bethany?" Bethabara is the "easier" text, and we can't explain why it would have been changed to Bethany.  Here we apply the guideline of "choosing the more difficult text," which is "Bethany beyond Jordan." In this case we have actual history of why it got changed.

(By the way, this is not the only time that Origen fooled around with the text of the Gospels. There's confusion about where Jesus met the man with a legion of demons, and in John: Episode Two I had to deal with that. But that's for a future blog post.)

Okay, back to the time machine. Take us home. You do remember how to operate this contraption? Good, then engage.

Today, if you consult the Biblical maps, you may find "Bethany beyond Jordan" on some of them, and "Bethabara" on others, but maps will disagree on where to place the dot that shows its location. Some maps even have both names. If you think that the mapmakers are guessing, you are probably correct, because there is no definite archaeological evidence for the site of Jesus' baptism. Oh yes, there is archaeological evidence for churches and monasteries supposedly at the sweet spot (both on the Jordan and far from it), but those ancient Christians were likely guessing also. Besides, we gotta have a location somewhere, 'cause the tourists are coming, and they want to see it.

And me too. Plus, I had to have a location for it because I'm writing a book with lots of action that takes place there. So I found at least one map that showed the spot as being on the Jordan just south of the Sea of Galilee and I picked that one. Why? First, that spot is on one of the caravan routes between Damascus and Jerusalem, and I figured that would bring a lot of customers in for this "baptism" thing he was doing. Also, if I were doing the hike, I think I could make it from there to Cana "on the third day." I'd really like to do that some day. And I didn't wanna have to resort to holy teleportation to get Jesus and his disciples to the wedding on time.

But, back to my distraction, which is probably a good thing. Without it, there's no telling how long and boring I would have made this blog post.

So, where am I going next week?

Here's a photo of that. This is the Wizard Pool, one of the hot soaking pools near Palm Spring in the Saline Valley, a suburb of Death Valley National Monument. When I lived there in ages past, there were 3 year-round residents in the valley--me and two others. The temperatures remained below 118 degrees in the daytime, and above 7 degrees at night.

West of this spot is Lower Warm Spring, a former hideout for Charles Manson and various hippies. It is accompanied by several soaking pools, some tables, a lawn, and real pit toilets. East of this spot is Upper Warm Spring, still undeveloped and natural. 12 miles west of here are the Inyo Mountains, rising steeply to Ten Thousand Feet.

I'M GOING!  It's been 20 years since I've been there. My family and their friends are going also! We're going hiking in the Inyos!  We're having a potluck on Thanksgiving! 

Did I mention I was distracted?

There won't be a blog post next Friday, 'cause I don't have a carrier pigeon to carry the text out to someone who has access to the World Wide Web. This place doesn't even have radio reception, except from Boise Idaho on AM radio during night-time hours only. Besides, I'm distracted.

Pray, please, for safe travel. See you in two weeks.

What Language Did Jesus Speak?

Aramaic? Hebrew? Greek?  Latin?

Or did Jesus speak more than one language?

Scholars, especially scholars of the 19th and 20th centuries, have been divided on the language of Jesus. From the pat answers of the past, we have evolved to a more nuanced understanding. From my viewpoint, I stand mostly on the shoulders of scholars before me, especially the Jerusalem School of Synoptic Studies (through the Pasadena teachings of E. William Bean), and on discoveries during research for my Master's thesis on the Letter of Jude (especially from the foremost scholar on Jude, Richard J. Bauckham). I have also consulted the excellent Patheos blog post of Mark D. Roberts to refresh my mind on this subject.

Jesus Spoke Aramaic

Aramaic was the language of the East, with roots in what is now Iraq. Starting in the 6th century BC, conquerors from the east established Aramaic as the official government language of the region of Galilee and Judea. By the time of Jesus, Aramaic was still the most common language in Palestine, even though the official government language was now Greek, brought in by Alexander the Great and his successors, and reinforced by the dominance of the Roman Empire. Aramaic would be especially prominent in rural villages such as Nazareth where Jesus grew up, while Greek would be more common in the newer, Roman-inspired cities such as nearby Sepphoris.

We have solid Biblical evidence that Jesus spoke Aramaic. Although the Gospels are written in Greek, in certain places they quote actual Aramaic words spoken by Jesus. Prominent among these is Mark 5:41, in which Jesus enters a home in Capernaum where a young girl has died. Jesus held her hand and said to her, "Talitha, koum!" which means, "Little girl, get up!"  These are words in Aramaic, the common language of the people, and the most likely words that the girl would understand.

Jesus spent a considerable portion of his ministry going from small town to small town, preaching the message of the Gospel. In these circumstances he would be mostly using Aramaic, to be understood by the majority of his listeners there.

Jesus spoke Hebrew.

Since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, we now know that the overwhelming majority of the manuscripts of the Old Testament in first-century Palestine were written in the original Hebrew language. In Egypt the Jews used the Greek translation of the Scriptures, but in Palestine, most synagogues would read from the original Hebrew. After a reading from the Five Books of Moses, their liturgical worship would go on to the Haftarah, a reading "after the Torah" from the books of the prophets. It was just such a reading that we find Jesus doing in Nazareth at Luke 4:16, showing that he not only spoke Hebrew, but also could read it from a scroll, and had been doing that as "his custom."

If he then translated that reading into Aramaic for the listeners in the synagogue we do not know. He may have expected his listeners to understand Hebrew. More likely, Luke skips over the translation task and cuts to the chase: Jesus' pesher "inspired interpretation" of the reading, delivered in the common language of the people, Aramaic (Luke 4:21). This method of teaching from scripture is well attested from the Dead Sea Scrolls collection.

But on other occasions, Jesus would have been using Hebrew as the prime language. Hebrew was the "language of religious discourse" used by scribes and by the great schools in Jerusalem. Jesus would have used Hebrew when he was in dialogue with Jerusalem's Pharisees and Scribes (Matthew 15:1-9) about matters of Jewish law, putting himself on a level plain with the great teachers of Jerusalem, who considered him and his disciples to be "unschooled."

Hebrew was also the language of patriots and zealots, the "national language" of those opposed to outside rulers, even as it is today. Jesus had at least one of these zealots among his disciples, and he may have used Hebrew when teaching such nationalists a more precise understanding of the Gospel message.

Jesus spoke Greek.

This is less certain than Aramaic or Hebrew, for we lack a direct citation of him speaking in Greek. Mark Roberts notes that we find Jesus in conversation with the Roman governor Pilate, who might not want to "lower" himself to speaking the common language--and certainly would not hear an official trial in anything but Greek. But here again, if there were translators present the Gospel writers would likely pass over their role in silence.

More to the point, Greek was prevalent in the major cities (perhaps not Jerusalem) and would have been the language of commerce. There were any number of major construction projects under way around Galilee, not only in Sepphoris but also in Herod Antipas' regional capital of Herodias on the shore of the Sea of Galilee. As a construction worker (the real meaning of "carpenter"), Jesus during his earlier 30 years would have worked on some of these projects, where great sums of money were spent to build elaborate structures.

For use of Greek I would point to Jesus' older brother Jude, one of the many offspring of Joseph and his first wife, before Mary. (This was the familial relationship understood and accepted during the first 200 years of Christianity--and certainly not a "cousin.") Jude's letter, while lacking in structures such as dependent clauses, is a powerful seven-minute sermon in fine sophisticated Greek using a broad vocabulary with sound structures such as alliteration and onomatopoeia. Jude certainly was exposed to Greek during his two or more years in Egypt as a boy, and I find it hard to accept that Jesus, although he was a toddler in Egypt, would not have picked up Greek from his four brothers and his two or three sisters.

Jesus may not have spoken Latin.

Although it is certain that there would have been Latin loan-words that crept into the Aramaic and Greek languages, the Roman Empire did not require Latin for its dependent territories to its east. On the other hand, there were Rome-loving cities in Syria and Palestine (the 10 towns of the Decapolis) where they were eager to adopt anything Roman, and would likely value its language. But the Bible does not attest to dealings of Jesus in these Rome-loving areas other than the boat trip that put him in contact with the man possessed by a legion of demons. The reaction of the citizens of the area was to ask Jesus to kindly leave the premises.

So, Jesus spoke Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek, and could probably read all three. This is far from some of the teachings of mid-20th century Christianity, which loved to portray Jesus and his disciples as uneducated, illiterate, poverty-stricken peons of the Nazareth countryside. Although Jesus had much to say about the treatment of such common people, these other perceptions were well off the mark.

But what about our teenage hero John? What language(s) does he speak? He grew up in the Aramaic-speaking village of Bethsaida, so that part's known. But does he speak Hebrew? If so, where did he learn it? And Greek? Same questions. If John the Baptist in his wilderness outpost takes young John in as his disciple, will he have to teach him how to read the Hebrew scrolls? Check out Episode One, where I deal with these issues in chapters 3 through 7!

Roman Soldiers Submitted to John's Baptism.

It's really true - here's the facts.

Preachers & scholars have said the soldiers were not Roman.

Luke 3:10-14 recounts some conversations between John the Baptist and people who have just been (or are just about to be) baptized by him in the Jordan River. First he speaks with the general crowd, then with tax collectors, and then with soldiers.

I've encountered professors and preachers who say these "soldiers" must be temple police, for surely they could not be soldiers of the occupying Roman army. Others leave the possibilities open. But on the other hand, what would temple police employed by the Jewish establishment in Jerusalem be doing hanging out with an anti-establishment prophet down by the Jordan? That doesn't seem to be a career-friendly move on the part of such a "soldier." So this week I did the research.

Let's look at how Luke uses soldiers in the first (Gospel) and second (Acts) parts of the two-volume opus he prepared for a Roman dignitary. He refers to army-type soldiers 18 times across the 52 chapters of his opus, and introduces the first group of them in Chapter 3 of his Gospel, in the passage cited above.

The soldiers at the Jordan:

ONE: Before the conversations in Luke 3 begin, we catch the end of the Baptist's sermon, in which he says, "Don't say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' For I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham." He is telling his Jewish listeners that if they fail to confess their sins, they are in no better position than godless Gentiles.

The Jews ask what they should do, and the Baptist preaches social justice. Then some hated tax collectors ask the same question. They are told to do their jobs as they have been assigned, and not to extort more money than they have been ordered to collect. And then some soldiers (stratuomai) speak up, saying "What about us?"  The Baptist gives them the same instruction, that is, to do their own job and not extort money--to be content with their wages. Stratuomai are soldiers trained for warfare.

I see this as a three-part levelling of the plain. The Jews are not exempt, not even the Jewish tax collector. John doubles down for the soldiers: they must also behave the same. Remember that Luke is writing this opus to a Roman "friend of God," one Theophilus. Luke is implying that not even Theophilus is exempt from this lesson taught by John the Baptist.

The centurion and his soldiers:

 TWO: The next mention of a soldier is imbedded in Luke 7:2-10. A Roman military official (centurion) in Capernaum asks for Jesus'  help, but says that Jesus need not come to him because Jesus is in a position to order things done just like himself, who is a man placed under authority with soldiers (stratiotees)  placed under him that do his bidding. (I will deal in part EIGHT below with the difference in the Greek word used)

This centurion was a lover of the Jewish nation and put up the money to build the synagogue. The lesson for Theophilus is that a person of high office can love the Jewish nation even if he is a Roman.

Herod's soldiers:

THREE: During the trial of Jesus, Herod the kinglet of Galilee and Perea happens to be in town, along with his personal security detail of soldiers. Pilate sends Jesus to Herod, who questions him at length with the chiefs of the temple present. Then Herod and his soldiers (stratuma) mock Jesus, dress him in a royal robe, and send him back to Jesus (Luke 23:7-11). I will deal with the word stratuma in part Eight below.

Theophilus might have noticed that it was not Roman soldiers but Jewish soldiers who were mocking Jesus. This is the only mention of Jewish soldiers by Luke.

Pilate's soldiers:

FOUR: The Roman soldiers (stratiotees) of the crucifixion detail cast lots for Jesus' clothing and joined the temple officials in mocking Jesus, the "King of the Jews" (Luke 23:36). The Roman Centurion in charge of the crucifixion says, "Certainly this man was innocent!" (Luke 23:47). Theophilus' lesson is the great injustice done to Jesus, as attested by a Roman official.

A devout Roman soldier:

FIVE: Cornelius was a Roman Centurion who was a devout respecter of God and friend of the Jews (Acts 10:1-2). He had a devout soldier (stratiotees) working for him who he sent to Joppa to fetch Peter (Acts 10:7-8). Theophilus could certainly identify with these Romans.

Other Roman soldiers in Acts:

SIX: Squads of Roman soldiers are assigned to guard Peter, who escapes anyway (Acts 12:4,6,18).
SEVEN: Soldiers of the Roman cohort rescue Paul from a riot (Acts 21:32,35).
EIGHT: Roman soldiers take Paul to Caesarea in Acts 23:10,27 (stratuma) and Acts 23:23,31 (stratiotees). While Luke appears to use these words interchangeably, stratuma refers to a troop of soldiers while stratiotees refers to a simple plurality of soldiers.
NINE: Roman soldiers guard Paul and other prisoners on a ship (Acts 27:31,39,42).
TEN: A Roman soldier is assigned to guard Paul in Rome (Acts 28:16).

In sum, Luke portrays Roman soldiers in his two-part opus as men who could reasonably be expected to accept a baptismal  immersion at the hand of John the Baptist. When we are in tune with Luke's writings, there is nothing fantastic or unbelievable about such an act.

But still, what about the temple police? Could Luke possibly have meant that Jewish policemen were baptized?

Officers, Magistrates, and the Captain of the Guard:

A soldier is a man of war, trained in battle. A police officer is a civic official, trained to enforce the law. Luke uses a word entirely different from "soldier" to identify an "officer," namely, strateegus.

ELEVEN: The chief priests and officers (strateegus) conspire with Judas (Luke 22:4). Later the chief priests and officers arrest Jesus (Luke 22:52).
TWELVE: The "captain of the temple guard" (strateegus) comes to arrest Peter and John (Acts 4:1), then goes to the temple to fetch them again (Acts 5:24,26). This was the "chief of police" who had a magistrate's job, in that he sat with the chief priests on the Jewish High Council.
THIRTEEN: Paul and Silas are jailed then released by the chief magistrates (strateegus) in Philippi (Acts 16:20,22,36,36,38).
None of these uses of the Greek word quite fit our concept of a policeman.

Roman Policemen:

FOURTEEN: Policemen (rabdouchous) in Philippi do the jailing and releasing under the command of the Roman magistrates (Acts 16:35,38).

In sum, if Luke had meant that anyone other than a Roman soldier was baptized by John, he would have made that clear with different words.

But what did they do with their swords and shields? If they were expected to be baptized in the nude, how did they react? To find that out, you'll need to read the book: See http://rolinbruno.com/

Secrets of the Dead Sea Scrolls:

Twelve Essenes to Judge the World?

Or Twelve Apostles to replace them?

The 2000-year-old Dead Sea Scrolls, found at mid-twentieth century in caves overlooking the Dead Sea, include remains from every book of the Bible except Esther. The crown jewel is the Great Isaiah Scroll, essentially complete, with little difference from the Book of Isaiah we read today.

But that's just the beginning of the story. The Scrolls included ruling documents of the Essene sect members that lived at Qumran by the Dead Sea, and writings about the End Times such as the book of Enoch.

In addition, there are pesher commentaries on many books of the Bible. A popular Bible commentary method of the time was to read each verse in a book and prophetically show its "pesher" interpretation for the current time. Daniel used this method when he read the handwriting on the wall, saying, "The interpretation (pesher) of the word is, God has numbered your kingdom and put an end to it" (Daniel 5:26).  Jesus used the pesher method when he read from Isaiah in the Nazareth synagogue, saying, "Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing" (Luke 4:21).

Among these Dead Sea commentaries is Pesher Isaiah, which suggests that a council of twelve men--symbolized as the twelve precious stones of the twelve tribes of Israel, and twelve 'pillars' of the new Jerusalem--were to rule the Essene community. Moreover, these twelve leaders would sit in the twelve gates of the resurrected Jerusalem to judge Israel and the world in the End Times.

Did Jesus model his ministry on the ideals of the Essene sect? It has been alleged that Jesus was a member of the Essenes and received instruction in Qumran. The evidence for that idea is quite weak and we may discard the notion.

However, it has more strongly been alleged that John the Baptist was instructed by the Essenes "in the desert" at Qumran. John's rejection of Pharisee and Sadducee leadership was certainly in tune with Essene teachings. And John's theology of baptism resembles the Essenes' theology of ritual washing, in that no amount of dunking or washing would be effective without a cleansing of the inner person--of the heart. But John's offer of baptism to the common folk--anyone who repented of their sin--would have gotten John tossed out on his ear by the Essenes. They were an exclusive group, demanding that new entrants give up their fortunes to the sect, and undergo a three-year process of cleansing and instruction to be admitted as members.

And now we get to the connection. Some scholars say that Jesus was a disciple of the Baptist. Although the fourth Gospel has Jesus showing up several times in the vicinity of the Baptist, that's a weak argument. And although Jesus was baptized by John, John objected to that. But when John was put in prison, that kicked off Jesus' active preaching ministry, and he began it by preaching the message of the Baptist: "Repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand!"

I still can't buy the notion that Jesus had an Essene background. But it's almost certainly true that he knew of the Essenes and was aware of their core teachings. So what about the institution of the Twelve?

When Jesus began to accept disciples, that put him on a par (socially) with the Pharisees and Sadducees who had their own disciples. According to the fourth Gospel, he started with the requisite five disciples, plus an un-named sixth disciple who we commonly identify as John son of Zebedee. Essentially, Jesus was running an unlicensed school. But his teachings were never meant to come alongside the Pharisees and Sadducees--they were meant to replace them.

But Jesus did not come just to teach. He came to usher in the emerging Kingdom of God. Not just ethics and piety and social justice were in his hands, but the fate of the Universe and its inhabitants. So in the following year Jesus commissioned the Twelve, to be with him and to be his emissaries. These 12 replaced and superseded the Essenes, whose trademark teachings concerned the end times. Jesus was in charge and his 'saints' would be the leaders.

The apostle Paul learned this also, and taught it to his churches: "Do you not know that the saints will judge the world?" (1 Cor 6:2). The old covenant has passed, and the new covenant will rule, when Jesus returns to rule the world for a thousand years. And Jesus, who rose from the dead, has already conquered death and the world. Marana Tha.

Since my book JOHN! Episode One deals with teenage John meeting the Baptist, I had to deal with the Baptist's Qumran background. Find out what I think may have happened at rolinbruno.com.

The insights from Pesher Isaiah were first brought forth by David Flusser, Dead Sea Scrolls scholar and Professor at Hebrew University in Jerusalem. His article may be found translated from the Hebrew in Judaism of the Second Temple Period, Volume 1, Qumran and Apocalypticism, pages 305-326.

Was Nathanael yanking on Jesus' chain?

Or was he the first to recognize the Son of God?

"Hey, Nate!" said Philip,

"We found the one that Moses and the prophets wrote about!

 It's Jesus of Nazareth!"

Nathanael, called Bartholomew [i.e. son of Tolmai] in the first three Gospels, blurts out the first thing that crosses his mind:

"Nazareth? Can anything good come out of Nazareth?"

Aside from the fact that Nazareth was a minor town of a couple hundred souls, Nathanael may have known that the Torah nowhere mentions a place called Nazareth, especially in regard to God's Anointed One (Messiah). But he follows Philip to meet Jesus anyway, where the following exchange takes place:

First let's deal with a small mistranslation in verse 51: the first "you" is singular, referring to Nathanael, but the second "you" is plural, referring to all Jesus' listeners, thus: "In very truth I tell you that all of you will see heaven standing open and angels ascending..."

Many writers and preachers extoll Nathanael's high praise when he meets Jesus. But Nathanael has already identified himself as a skeptic who does not hide his doubts, when he questioned the status of lowly Nazareth. In verse 48, he doubles down on his skepticism: "How do you know that about me?"

Here he has a stranger who claims to know stuff about him, a sign that he might be a prophet. (Another instance like this is at John 4:19 when Jesus meets a woman at a well, and reveals his knowledge of the five men in her past. She replies, "I see you are a prophet.")

Jesus responds to Nathanael in his trademark non sequitur fashion, "Hey, I saw you under the fig tree."

And here we come to the crux. For the majority of Bible teachers, this evokes Nathanael's awesome knowledge of the true identity of Jesus: the Son of God and the rightful King of Israel.

But this arises from a lack of appreciation for Hebrew and Aramaic humor. In actuality, here Nathanael is messing with Jesus because of the improbable response that he gave. Nathanael's joke says in effect, "Seriously? You saw me under the tree so you know all about me?"

Let's look at a couple instances of Hebrew humor, quite different from our modern forms:

Genesis 18:12-13. Sarah overheard the angel say she would bear a child at age 90+, and "laughed" spontaneously. This was no enjoyable belly-laugh, but a response to an improbable and unexpected prophecy--perhaps murmuring "humph" in disbelief. But in Hebrew terms, she "laughed," as confirmed by the angel. Abraham had the same reaction, at Genesis 17:17.

At Genesis 21:6, the improbable message of the angel came true, and Sarah says, "God has made laughter for me, and everyone who hears about this will laugh with me!" Thus we see one form of Hebrew humor, where that which is unbelievable actually comes to pass.

Nathanael's response is in this same tenor: Jesus has mentioned the improbable conditions by which he learned Nathanael's disposition to never say anything which is false. But what was Jesus' response?

Jesus went along with Nathanael's joke!

He says, "So you believe the improbable? You're gonna see stuff a lot more improbable than that!"
Then Jesus leaves the humor behind and drops into a serious tone, teaching his disciples their very first lesson, to wit:

"You will all see that the Son of Man teaches not only earthly knowledge, but also knowledge which comes from heaven. Not only that, but heaven hears the entreaties of the Son of Man."

So was Nathanael the first to reveal the true nature of "the Son of Man?" In a sense, yes. Scripture has examples of even unbelievers speaking prophecy by the influence of the Holy Spirit. In spite of their unbelief (or emerging belief) the words they say are a testimony to the truth by which others may learn.

You can find and explore this entire exchange and more in John! Episode One: http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B013NVWUT6

Why is John son of Zebedee down by the Jordan?

Why isn't he home fishing on the lake with pop?

A most peculiar question struck me the first time I read John 1:35-40, and I have not been able to shake it yet. What's John doing down by the Jordan River? Why is he following John the Baptist around? Why in the world would he call himself a disciple of the Baptist? What's going on here?

That question has been with me for since I was ten years old. At ten, I had an insatiable curiosity about the Bible, but no resources to guide me. No teacher. No commentaries. Just the black words on the page, set off by the red words when Jesus was speaking.

Before we can address the above question, we must address the question of identity. The book of John, like the other Gospels, is internally anonymous. The word "John" is used therein only as the name of the Baptist. The word "Apostle" does not appear in this fourth Gospel. The word "Zebedee" appears but once, in the Gospel's closing story of an emotionally charged final meeting between Jesus and his closest, earliest disciples. The writer of the Gospel then introduces himself as "the disciple whom Jesus loved."

But back to our passage in John chapter one. Two initially anonymous disciples of the Baptist follow after Jesus, then one of them is identified as Andrew, the brother of the man who becomes known as Simon Peter, while the other remains anonymous. To me at age ten, from its placement in the unfolding story, It was obvious to me that this was John, son of Zebedee and future Apostle. Some well respected scholars today dispute that identification, and one (Richard Bauckham) denies that John son of Zebedee wrote the fourth Gospel. But I have never found a reason to question my initial identity of this anonymous disciple of the Baptist as the writer of our beloved Gospel.

And now back to my question. It is agreed by many scholars that John was the youngest, or one of the youngest, of Jesus' disciples. Instead of meeting John in the company of his elder brother Big James, we meet him in the company of Simon Peter's younger brother Andrew. This leads to the implication (or at least inference) that John son of Zebedee and Andrew son of Jonah are friends, and are likely of similar age.

Age: in ancient Judaism one became a man when he became a son of the Law (bar Mitzvah), usually around the age of thirteen or so. A thirteen-year-old male would not be identified in the bible as a child. He is a man. So it is entirely within the realm of possibility that the Disciple whom Jesus Loved was thirteen when he met Jesus. In my reading of the Gospels, it is possible that up to six of the Apostles were indeed teenagers. In other words, Jesus' first ministry assignment was the youth group. How many of us have started that same way?

But John has a devoted and protective mother, who wants the best for her son. He has a close and productive father, who heads up a commercial fishing consortium on the Sea of Galilee. John has a secure job as a fisherman in this business consortium. He has a secure future, for he and his brother will inherit leadership shares in this consortium. Fishing was big business on the Sea of Galilee. In the fish processing plant at Magdala, fish were dried, smoked, and salted, and packed into large jars for shipping to markets as far away as Rome. So again,

Why is John son of Zebedee following the Baptist around and calling himself a disciple?

We are not entirely clueless as to possible reasons, for we can look to the preaching of John the Baptist to see if there's something there that could draw in our teenage fisherman:

"REPENT! For the Kingdom of God is at hand!"

John and James became known as "Sons of Thunder." Is it possible that they had a loud and demanding father? Is it possible that John ran afoul of his father's expectations, or worse, committed some teenage trespass that got him in trouble? Did the younger son of Zebedee do something from which he needs to repent? Were teenagers in the first century anything like teenagers today?

Again, isn't it exciting that the Kingdom of God is at hand? Change is coming! Big things are on the horizon! The action is going on down by the Jordan, where a new prophet is teaching repentance and change. Wouldn't a teenager like to be close to the action?

The above is speculation, of course. But it helps us understand the impact and drawing power of the man who was the herald for the new Messiah. And it lays the groundwork for why two young men would suddenly leave their teacher and follow this new guy, Jesus of Nazareth, when the Baptist points him out.

Such are the assumptions that lie behind the beginning of my new book series, JOHN!
If you'd like a closer look at my answer to the above questions, you can find a preview on my author page on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B013NVWUT6

Enjoy!

Blogging on Amazon

Woo Hoo! Now you'll be able to find all my new blog posts at my Author Page on Amazon at http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B013NVWUT6. I'm going to be offering a series of posts on questions behind the writing of the story of JOHN! And you can always get my latest publishing scoop at https://facebook.com/AuthorRolinBruno.

Gospel Harmony and History - Part Three

Harmony of the Gospels:

What about History in the Gospels?

To create a harmony of the Gospels, we have to pay attention to the history inside the Gospels. We need some sense of the order of events to answer our questions about the apparent differences between the Gospels.

But some of us are looking for something different: We want some sense of the history that lays behind the Gospels; something that will make their distant, foreign, and long-ago experience more familiar and understandable to us today.

First a word of caution: If you are looking for history, you'll find history. If you are looking for Jesus, you'll find Jesus. The four Gospel writers each had something to teach, with different emphases for each writer. If you are reading the Gospels according to a historical reading guide or a Gospel harmony, you will miss lessons that the four writers felt were important. I recommend reading the Gospels as they stand first, starting with John, and proceeding through Mark, Matthew, and Luke. Then continue on to Acts, to gather the rest of Luke's lessons.

Now to the Gospels: Matthew, Mark, and Luke are quite similar in structure, and it is easy to read them and come to the conclusion that the ministry of Jesus lasted about a year. But these writers are not trying to teach a chronological depiction of what Jesus said or did. Instead, they often gather Jesus' teachings topic by topic, and arrange the narratives to fit the topics and advance the lessons of Jesus. There can be little doubt that Jesus had a "stump speech" which he repeated as he travelled from town to town, teaching that the "Kingdom of God was at hand."

John's Gospel, on the other hand, includes celebration of Jewish feasts as part of his narrative, especially the feast of  Passover. He tells us of three specific Passover occasions and possibly a fourth, which is identified only as a 'festival.'  Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that Jesus' period of ministry covered a span of three to four years. From this we learn why a harmony of the Gospels is organized on the apparent timeline of John's Gospel, with the input from the other three Gospels placed in appropriate time slots.

Speaking from the standpoint of being one of Jesus' disciples, John fills in much more of the early interactions between Jesus and his earliest disciples. From John we learn that Jesus had already spent months with his disciples before that famous day when he walked beside the Sea of Galilee and called four fishermen from their boats, saying "Follow me!" We get a better idea, then, what it may have been like for Father Zebedee as his two sons dropped their work and left him standing there while they departed in the footsteps of Jesus.

My book series JOHN! is a work of fiction based on such a harmony of the Gospels, based on the work of anonymous Christians many years past and brought up to date with my own analysis. It is enjoyable reading, plus you will learn things about the Gospels that you may have never noticed before. It includes endnotes for each story where the reader can refer to the actual scripture verses which form the basis for the story. And since it's about teens, it's a good read for teens!

Looking forward for these blog pages, I'm going to depart from all this boring generalization and get into the actual Bible stories to reflect on what it is that the Bible DOESN'T tell us and what may have happened with the real people who lived the stories.

Gospel Harmony and History - Part Two

Harmony of the Gospels:
Just a tool to resolve discrepancies? 

Sea of Galilee

 

We saw in Part 1 how a Harmony of the Gospels can be used as an aid to resolve discrepancies. When 19th- and 20th-century academics treated the Gospels as if they were at war with one another, the individual teachings of the four Gospel-writers suffered. But a harmony is meant to bring peace, as this peaceful day on the Sea of Galilee.

One important facet of harmonizing is to identify when Gospels were describing the same event, or a different event with similar circumstances. The differing testimonies of the man 'demonized' by foul spirits (Matthew's account vs. Mark & Luke's account) are judged to be the same event, for all three Gospel writers show its appearance directly after Jesus calms the sea, and directly before the healing of the 12-year suffering woman and the raising of the 12-year-old girl.

Not so with Jesus overturning the tables in the temple (John 2:13-22 vs. Matthew 21:12-16, Mark 11:15-18, Luke 19:45-48). Not only do the details differ, but John places the event near the beginning of Jesus' ministry, while the other three place it near the end, just after Jesus' triumphant entry into the temple. We would not attempt to harmonize John's account with the others.

Also in the case of Jesus' rejection at Nazareth, Luke's account of what Jesus has to say differs substantially from what he says in Matthew and Mark (Luke 4:16-30 vs. Matthew 13:53-58, Mark 6:1-6). Here there is only approximate placement agreement between Matthew and Mark, who place the incident near the middle of Jesus' ministry. But there is a substantial difference from Luke's account, who places it closer to the beginning of Jesus' ministry. These are two events, not one.

Which brings us to the subject of History. We must remember,
THE GOSPELS ARE NOT HISTORY LESSONS.
They are Christianity lessons. More about that in Part 3. 

Gospel Harmony vs. History - Part One

What's a Harmony of the Gospels? 

     These used to be commonly found in the back pages of printed bibles, after Revelation and before the Index or Concordance. They collected into one place all the Gospel verses that described a particular event, so that the differences between them could be examined and researched. Using this tool Bible scholars could resolve the differences, and respond to critics who claimed that the Bible was self-contradictory.
     Let's take an example: After Jesus crossed the Sea of Galilee by boat, he encountered a man who was "demonized" by a legion of unclean spirits, as reported by Mark and Luke. But Matthew reports that there were two spirit-plagued men who encountered Jesus. Did one or two of the Gospel writers make a mistake?
     The stock answer is, "Neither. There are no mistakes in the Bible. If Mark and Luke only reported one of the two men for their stories, they had a reason for doing so."
     Is there evidence to support that view? In this case, yes. When Jesus is first confronted with these "demonized" men, he has a conversation with the unclean spirits, not with the men themselves. The voice that engages Jesus always refers to itself as "we," not "me," in all three Gospels.
     But in Mark and Luke there is a second conversation, this one between a man (singular) and Jesus. The man wants to travel with Jesus, but Jesus tells him to go tell people how God freed him from unclean spirits. The man (singular) goes throughout the Roman territory of the Ten Towns telling what Jesus had done for him. For Mark and Luke, this is an important part of their story, so they simply ignored the second man, who had been freed from foul spirits but had not begged to go with Jesus.
     And in Matthew? The second conversation is not present, perhaps not important to the lessons that Matthew is teaching in this context. Matthew therefor was free to report both demonized men without having to deal with the complication of their different histories after the spirits cast out. This is not to lay any blame on the person who didn't beg Jesus: he may simply not have been there by the time Jesus departed that area.
      (This story is at Matthew 8:28-34, Mark 5:1-20, and Luke 8:26-39)

What about History?

     As can be seen by this case, harmonizing the Gospels is an essential tool if a history of Jesus and the disciples is being attempted. Note that the Gospels themselves do not attempt to teach history, but instead use history as they tell their stories with the intent to teach the Gospel message of Salvation. We will go into that in more detail in PART TWO.

Welcome to my new blog!

Here I'll investigate and analyze the Gospels from the standpoint of the teens and young people who were there when it happened! Read along with me as I reveal the secrets behind my new series of books, starting with "John! Episode One - AD 27," now available on Amazon and at RolinBruno.com! My goal: First blog post up before the end of August!