- The translation I've been reading as of late, the English Standard Version, keeps having people call Jesus "rabbi." What I want to know is WHY? Jesus wasn't a rabbi -- there WEREN'T any rabbis in the Second Temple period. The closest thing was a Pharisee, and although Jesus has some pharisaic characteristics, he's also depicted as constantly getting in bitch fights with them. I don't get it.
- There are only a few moments completely unique to Mark, but one of them is freakin' great. When Jesus is taken to his trial, a young man wearing a loincloth follows him. The authorities try to grab him, but he rips off his scant garment and runs away naked!
- Unlike in Matthew, Jesus actually professes to be the Christ when interviewed by the high priests. This is doubly offensive, since -- as you may remember -- "Christ" means "anointed" and the priests actually were anointed, or "Christs." He was totally undermining them.
- The disciple who buries Jesus is here described as a "respected member of the Council" (Mark 15:43). Apparently this means he was a member of the Sanhedrin. Weren't they the ones who convicted Jesus? I'm so confused!
- Another difference is that Mary Magdalene's friend Mary is the mother of Joses instead of John and James. And it is noted that Jesus at one point expelled seven demons from Mary Magdalene.
- The resurrection scene is a little different here too, omitting the presence of Roman guards outside of the tomb, among other small changes. Interestingly, some older manuscripts end the book with the angel's proclamation that Jesus has risen, after which the two Marys run from the tomb in terror. Not such a happy ending! Later editions have included a tale comparable to that in Matthew, where Jesus actually appears to the disciples.
Next up is Luke, which so far is my favorite gospel. As far as I can tell, Mark just wants to get the job done, Matthew adds in a few flourishes, but with Luke it's FREAKIN' STORY TIME! YEAH!!!
So grab some hot cocoa and listen up. Luke's author was a Gentile Christian who my study bible describes as "one of the first church writers with a real awareness of himself as a literary figure." It was presumably written in the 90s CE, like Matthew, and seems to borrow heavily from Mark at least as far as the story's framework is concerned. It is the final "synoptic" gospel.
Unlike the first two books, Luke opens up with a dedication to a fellow named Theophilus, which translates to "lover of God." Very literary! He also refrains from jumping right into the story of Jesus, prefacing the narrative with John the Baptist's birth. An old couple named Zecheriah and Elizabeth are living in Jerusalem, where Zecheriah is a priest. Although they are pious and upright, they have no children -- kind of like Sarah and Abraham, huh? Anyway, one day the angel Gabriel appears to Zecheriah and tells him that he will soon sire a son, who he is to name John. Zecheriah is doubtful, which causes Gabriel to make him go mute! That's what you get for fucking with angels!
After making his detour to Jerusalem, Gabriel goes to visit Mary and Joseph, who live in Nazareth (not Bethlehem). He tells Mary about how she's going to get knocked up by the Holy Spirit, which she is super psyched about, and she goes to visit Elizabeth. When she walks in the door, John the Fetus Baptist "leap[s] in [Elizabeth's] womb [and fills her] with the Holy Spirit" (Luke 1:41). Isn't this weird and fun? Didn't I tell you it was story time?
Chapter 1 ends with John's birth, while chapter 2 is explicitly concerned with Jesus. Joseph and Mary have to travel to Bethlehem to register for... something... Taxes? I'm not sure. Ostensibly, the reason they have to go is because Joseph is a descendent of King David -- but it's actually totally unrealistic that a Nazarene man would have to travel to the home of his ancestor who is something like fourteen generations removed. Like Matthew, Luke probably made this journey up to ensure that Jesus's birth fulfilled Old Testament prophecies. On their journey, Mary goes into labor and has to give birth in a manger because there is no room at the inn that they find. My best friend wrote a concept album called Jesus Christ Super Cool, which aptly describes this moment:
"Where are we going to stay?" cried the woman.At this point, an angel finds three shepherds and tells them to go CHECK IT OUT, the Son of Man was just born! It is interesting that Luke's author chose shepherds instead of magi, as Matthew's author did. It is possible that Luke -- who was particularly concerned with the plight of the poor -- wanted to link Jesus with the common people.
"This manger looks pretty swell," said the carpenter.
"A hotel room is better, what have we got to lose?"
The carpenter said, "We can't, 'cause we're cheap Jews."
My best friend's song confuses the two accounts:
Mary had her baby in a manger.After his birth, Jesus is presented at the temple in Jerusalem and an old man named Simeon gets super psyched because God promised him that he would not die until he had seen the messiah with his own eyes. He must have some crazy ESP or something, because he instinctively knows that Jesus is the right guy.
She said, "Let's invite some strangers!
"Some wise men to help me sleep.
"How 'bout some goats and some sheep?"
At this point the story jumps ahead to when Jesus is twelve years old, and travels to Jerusalem with his family for the Passover feast. They lose track of him and, assuming that he is with the departing party, leave without him. When they realize that Jesus is gone they have to go back and spend three days looking for him, before they finally find him "in the temple, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions" (Luke 2:46). Clever as can be, the young Jesus amazes the elders with his insight and understanding. My best friend writes of Jesus's precociousness in her album:
This Jesus is pretty young,Jesus's parents reprimand him for disappearing, but he simply responds, "Why were you looking for me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father's house?" (Luke 2:49).
But he can already tie his shoes,
I think this baby's gonna be King of the Jews!
One thing I'd like to note: although nowadays, because we think of Jesus as being the "son of God," we might interpret this as a direct reference to their intimate relationship. But all Jews at that time referred to God as "our Father." Jesus calling God "father" is not in and of itself unusual at all, and although his pronoun of choice ("my" instead of "our") is slightly deviant, it was not unheard of.
Chapter 3 tells us all about John the Baptist's ministry and Jesus's baptism. It also contains Jesus's genealogy, which goes back to Adam instead of stopping at Abraham. As a Gentile Christian, Luke probably wanted to emphasize Jesus's connection to all of mankind, rather than his connection to the Jewish people.
Chapters 4 and 5 contain Jesus's temptation in the wilderness, his rejection in Nazareth, the recruitment of the first four apostles (and later the tax collector, Levi), assorted healings, and questions from the Pharisees about fasting. Nothing new here, except maybe the fact that the Nazarene citizens actually want to throw Jesus off a cliff when he preaches to them, as opposed to just politely asking him to leave. Well, you know. These people aren't big on the whole "moderation" thing.
Before I take off, I wanted to address one of my lovely commenters. Under the pseudonym of "boring idiot," someone remarked on the scene in Mark 12 when an old widow donates her last two coins to the temple. I rather flippantly described the scene as "sweet" or "cute" or something like that, which prompted my humble commenter to write, "No, it isn't. A poor lady giving her last coin to the church is one of the greatest images of harm religion does."
Okay. Yeah, that's a valid point. I admit that I sometimes get so wrapped up in the biblical mindset when reading that events like this don't perturb me, but what our friend "boring idiot" has said has truth, particularly when considered in a modern context. The one defense I will make of the Evangelicals is this: in the Second Temple period, there was no separation of religion from everyday life. The Temple here does not only represent Judaism, but all authority, divine and otherwise; it is the foundation of the entire society. I'm not saying this makes it better, but I do think it's somewhat anachronistic to apply our modern sensibilities about religion to the Gospels.
But thank you for your comment, "boring idiot" ! Thank you to everyone who commented! You are a delight to me. See you all tomorrow.
> It also contains Jesus's genealogy ...
ReplyDeletewhich is different even at the point of Joseph's father. Seems like Matthew and Luke were too anxious to secure Jesus's place as the son of David.