THE GOSPEL TRUTH?
While I made some contributions to Shakespearean tragedy before I retired including a book on ‘Hamlet’ by Yale, I remain sceptical about religion and have since joined the British Humanist Association. I have never been baptised because my parents lost their faith during WW1 – my father was in the Merchant Navy and torpedoed by a dud and my mother’s brother after the Dardanelles was killed in France at Cambrai. But my mother insisted I keep contact with the church until I was adolescent. After war service I was placed on the reserve list of the SAS and I remained sceptical about religion.
This short study began with a joke which my wife took in good part knowing my background. I asked her on her way to Communion if she wanted to be a cannibal and a vampire because Jesus had said in John 6 ‘Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood possesses eternal life and I will raise him up on the last day. My flesh is real food! My blood is real drink… from that time on, many of his disciples [adherents]? withdrew and no longer went about him’. And so I became intrigued by the problem and began a more serious attempt to understand the Gospels. As a result I found that to hate your wife or even your life did not disqualify a disciple from becoming one and I frankly could not believe this because I had never heard it from the pulpit.
My sources were Professor JR Porter’s ‘Jesus Christ’ which presents a view of Christianity based on modern scholarship and acceptable to most believers ‘(Oxford 2007)’. The historical background has also been noted by John Romer’s ‘Testament. The God Delusion by Professor Richard Dawkins, and Professor Christopher Hitchin’s ‘God is not Great’. Brief mention is made at Professor Geza Vermes. And finally what has become the standard test since 1961. ‘The New English Bible, New Testament’.
The sections appear on the following pages:
Birth and Lineage
Family
The Disciples
Healing
The Parables
The Mission and the Message
Identity
Betrayal
The Trial
The Crucifixion
The Resurrection
The Second Coming
Appendix-Mary of Magdala
Arthur R McGee
E-mail: ar.m@ntlworld.com
Birth & Lineage
To Christians Jesus is Christ, the Messiah (from Hebrew ‘anointed’ via Greek and Latin), and the Son of God. To Jews today, and to most Jews in Biblical times this was an impossible fusion because their tradition held that the Messiah would be a mortal and a descendant of King David, and made no claim that he was the Son of God – nor does the Old Testament. Indeed, in the Dead Sea scrolls ‘a symbolic opponent’ may well be overcome by ‘people of God’ (Vermes pp. 59-60) and of course at his trial before the Jewish Council. The Sanhedrin, his claim to be Son of God was judged to be blasphemous.
There appears to be scholarly agreement that the Gospels are written for different groups of people and while the most common language in Palestine was Aramaic, a form of Hebrew, they understood, Greek. Alexander the Grear has conquered Palestine and his cultural influence remained in Roman times. He was believed to have been born of a God (Zeus presumably) and a virgin who was mortal, as were other prominent figures in Graeco-Roman times such as the emperor Augustus. And so a child born of a mortal woman and fathered by a god was an acceptable idea.
Matthew however provides Joseph with a human pedigree stretching from King David over 28 generations which includes Tamara, whose children were born of incest, and Bathsheba, whose children were born of adultery, whereas Luke cites 41 generations. But all this is irrelevant because they agree only on Joseph’s grandfather, and because if Jesus was the Son of God then Joseph could not be his father, and as we shall see later, Jesus himself disclaims human lineage.
The divine and human antecedents combine in Mary, who is a virgin, betrothed to Joseph – she is his ‘betrothed to Joseph – she is his ‘betrothed wife’. As such, if she had produced a child by a mortal she would have committed adultery according according to the Law of Moses (cf. Deuteronomy 20:7 and 22:23) as Catholic canon law observed in medieval times, and continued in Shakespeare's lifetime. Arguably therefore 'Thou shalt not commit adultery' did not apply to God. Curiously, Porter records that the early Christian writer Origen (c.185-214) together with the Talmud and other Jewish sources record an allegation of an adulterous liaison with a Roman soldier called Pantera... 'In Germany in 1859 a tomb of a Roman soldier bearing that name, who came from Sidon in the reign of Tiberias (42 BC - 32 BC) was found'. (Porter p.68)
It is only when Mary becomes pregnant that Joseph learns from an angel in a dream that Mary had not been unfaithful. She has not told him of Gabriel's visitation when he tells her that her son will be given the throne of his ancestor David and that 'he will be King of Israel for ever' and he will be called 'Son of God'. But none of this came true - Jesus was not enthroned - instead became 'King of the Jews' only in a placard above his head by Pilate's explicit order when he was crucified and 'Son of God' was a death warren.
Difficulties also arise about the birth place of Jesus because there are clear indications of the historical inaccuracies of the Gospels on this matter. Matthew has Mary and Joseph in Bethlehem moving to Nazareth long after the birth of Jesus on their return from Egypt where they had fled to escape Herod's 'Massacre of the Innocents' - the slaying of the infants among whom one might become the Messiah. But this is nonsense because Herod died in 4BC. Luke, on the other hand, has the couple move from Nazareth to Bethlehem because Caesar Augustus (63BC-14AD) had declared a census for taxation purposes in the Empire and everybody had to go to his own town. But this is not true because there was only a local census under a governor and this took place in 6AD. It seems thus that neither Matthew nor Luke knew the real circumstances surrounding the birth of Jesus but both sought to have him born in Bethlehem to fulfil a messianic prophecy which can be traced back to the Old Testament prophet Micah (5:2). Later in the Gospels it appears that the Jews believed that Jesus was a Nazarene from Galilee and thus had no claim to messianic status.
To sum up, Jesus' relationship to David, the virgin birth, Gabriel and birth in Bethlehem are fictions that have survived for centuries because of the belief that the Bible being the word of God it is sacrilege to question it [Gabriel (Luke 1:32-33), Siblings (Matthew 13:55-56). Placard (Matthew 27:37 and John 19:22)]
Family
It is curious that although women in the Ancient World were regarded more as chattels than people female virginity was associated with divinity, although Hitchens writes: 'The Talmud commands the observant one to thank his maker every day that he was not born a woman'. And the New Testament has Saint Paul expressing both fear and contempt for the female (p.54). The Parthenon however was built to honour the goddess Pallas Athene. For the Romans the Cumaean Sybil was a legendary virgin who had oracular powers and there were also the Vestal Virgins and the goddess Diana. Both the Sybil and Diana are mentioned by Shakespeare's Portia and he describes Queen Elizabeth as 'the fair vestal'. With this background it is not surprising that as Porter records 'From the mid-second century CE the Church increasing emphasised the concept of the perpetual virginity of Mary... For example it has been proposed that Jesus' brothers were either step-brothers (the children of a former marriage of Joseph) or else Jesus' cousins (the sons of a sister of Mary) as 'brother' could signify no more than 'kinsman'. But children of a former marriage would have a better claim to be descendants of David and so contradict his Gospel pedigree. But the same wish to have Mary a perpetual virgin is seen in the Middle Ages when the monks adopted the books of the Cumaean Synil and so in Book Four we find: 'God shall be born of a pure Virgin'. And this differs little from the wording in the Roman Catholic 'A Catechism of Christia Doctrine' (1928). However this is directly contradicts Matthew (1:24-25): 'Joseph did as the angel has directed him; he took Mary home to be his wife but had no intercourse until her son was born'. For Joseph then Mary's genitalia were not regarded as sacrosanct for Mary gave birth to four more sons - James, Joseph, Judas and Simon and at least two daughters.
In a modern scientific context parthenogenesis can be viewed differently. It occurs in some birds and in some insects and, as revealed in a recent TV programme, by David Attenborough the Kommodo dragon. No such occurrence seems to have been recorded in the human species, but if God is the cause of parthenogenesis in both the Virgin Mary and Kommodo dragon can the offspring of both be considered divine?
Jesus showed no affection for his mother nor honoured her as a human being as the law of Moses instructed, nor did he allude to her relationship with God. Later in his ministry a woman called out to him, “Happy the womb that carried you and the breasts that suckled you”. His reply was dismissive: “No happy are those who hear the word of God and keep it”. (Luke 11:27-28). At Cana of Galilee he addressed her as 'Mother even on the cross', as John narrates he said, “Woman, there is your son' referring to John himself. 'There is your mother. And from that moment the discipline took her into his home”. (John 19:26-27). There is no mention of his brothers at the crucifixion for whom he seems to have had scant regard as for his mother, for when they sought to take charge of him when people were saying he was out of his mind he retorted, ‘pointing to his disciples’ “Here are my mother and my brothers”. (Matthew 12:46-50). Luke’s version is: “My mother and my brothers they are those who hear the word of God and act upon it”.( Luke 8:20-21). His brothers in their turn did not believe in him as John relates: ‘If you are really doing such things as these, show yourself to the world’. (John 7:4-6). This was a challenge to Jesus to attend the Feast of Tabernacles in Judea, but he stayed behind in Galilee, and ‘went up, not publicly, but almost in secret’. His father Joseph obviously had not raised expectations about the future development of Jesus in spite of a brief mention in a trip to Jerusalem when Jesus was a boy of twelve, there is no record of him. He was a carpenter and Jesus followed in his footsteps – there was no special training for the Son of God.
As for harmony within the family Jesus said he had not “come to bring peace but a sword, a man against his father, a daughter against her mother –in-law; and a man will find his enemies under his own roof. No man is worthy of me who cares more for father or mother than me; who cares more for a son or a daughter” (Matthew 10:34-37). And, “There is no one who has given up the house, brothers or sisters, mother, father or children or land for my sake and for the Gospel who will not receive in this age a hundred times as much” (Matthew and Luke similarly). And finally, “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, even his own life he cannot be a disciple of mine” (Luke 14:26-27). The disciples are also told, “Do not call any man on earth ‘father’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven”. (Matthew 23:9-10). And in Luke (9:59-60) a man is told to ignore his father’s funeral.
Elsewhere we find, ‘God said “Honour your father and your mother and the man who curses his father or mother must suffer death” (Matthew 15:4-5), which was presumably the law of Moses.
Before considering the disciples in more detail in modern terms they might be regarded as misfits, depressives or isolates and as such would be unlikely to be suitable for training as social workers whose concern would be to promote harmony within the individual and the family. And it seems pertinent to ask whether Jesus’ attitude to his own family differed from that of his disciples.
The Disciples
The Twelve Disciples are listed by Matthew and Luke but disagree on one, although both include Juda Iscariot and there are references to Phillip and Nathaniel in John. In Matthew (10-5:9) they are told “Do not take the road to Gentile lands, and do not enter any Samaritan towns; but go rather to the lost sheep of Israel… Heal the sick, raise the dead, and cleanse lepers cast out devils”. And when the Son of Man is seated on his throne in heavenly splendour you my followers will have tribes of Israel’ (Matthew 19:28-29). And to Simon he says, “You are Peter, the Rock; and on this rock I will build my church, and the forces of death shall never overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven”. (Matthew 16:18-19).
In Luke (9:3-6) Jesus gives them instructions: ‘Take nothing for the journey, neither stick nor pack, neither bread nor money; nor are you each to have a second coat. When you are admitted to a house stay there, and go on from there. As for those who will not receive you, when you leave their town shake the dust off your feet as a warning to them’. The ‘warning’ appears in a briefing of the ‘seventy two’: “The Kingdom of God has come close. I tell you, it will be more bearable for Sodom on the great Day than for this town” (Luke 10:10-12). The mission of the ‘seventy two’ was successful; in jubilant mood they reported, ‘Even the devils submit to us’. And en-route to Jerusalem when Jesus is refused entry to a Samaritan village the disciples James and John said, ‘Lord, may we call down fire from heaven to burn them up?’ (Luke 9:54-55). ‘But he turned and rebuked them, and they went to another village’.
In John (15:12-14) Jesus says, “This is my commandment: love one another; as I have loved you”. And “There is no greater love than this, that a man shall lay down his life for his friends”. But there is no mention of wives, children or parents. In addition his love for the disciples is conditional: “You are my friends if you do what I command you”. His love is also presented as more exclusive as John is described as ‘the disciple he loved’ which suggests favouritism at least – or homosexuality? (cf. ‘John was reclining close beside Jesus’ (John 13:23-24) and this Gospel was directed to a Greek audience (the reference is to the Last Supper). Simon Peter says, ‘I will lay down my life for you ‘ but Jesus replies, “I tell you in very truth before the cock crows you will have denied me three times”, (John 13:38), which turns out to be a true prediction, but does not anticipate Peter’s cutting off the right ear of the High Priest (John 18:10-11) and (Luke 22:50-51) who does not name him in the garden of Gethsemane, where the other disciples fled, and only John was present at the crucifixion, or that Judas Iscariot, who was originally promised to be a judge of one of the Twelve Tribes of Israel would betray him. The bond between Jesus and his disciples which he symbolised by washing their feet did not appear to hold when the disciples’ lives were also in danger. And Jesus too contradicted his own earlier teaching when he advised, ‘It is different now, whoever has a purse has better take it with him, and his pack too; and if he has no sword, let him sell his cloak and buy one’, to which there had been a reply, ‘We have two swords here’, (Luke 22:36-38) one of which was worn by Simon Peter (Porter p. 115) omits both Jesus’ instruction to buy swords and does not identify the assailant as Peter. In his comments on the disciples Porter records that, ‘The ideal disciple abandons everything – home, wife, parents, children for the sake of the Kingdom (p. 90) but he omits the fact that the disciples should hate them, as mentioned above.
And so, the disciples, initially motivated by hatred of their own families, did not learn to love their enemies and in spite of Jesus’ promise of thrones in heaven and immortality they were not prepared to die for their beliefs. So much for sainthood.
Healing
Porter says, ‘In Jesus’ day, illness and disease were regularly blamed on evil spirits or demons, and for this reason it is hard distinguish absolutely in the Gospels between healing and exorcism’ (p. 94). The root cause was sin: ‘The Christian focus was overwhelmingly on ‘sin – sin sin sin sin sin’, according to Dawkins (p. 252), and, ‘Original sin itself comes straight from the Old Testament myth of Adam and Eve I’ (p. 251). And he adds that ‘The sin of Adam and Eve is thought to have passed down the male line – transmitted in the semen according to Augustine’ (p. 251). It follows that as Jesus claimed to be able to forgive sins that he could cure all ills, and this healing capability was traditionally accredited to the Messiah – his power to heal proved his credentials.
Jesus himself asserts the existence of demonic possession: ‘When an unclean spirit comes out of a man it wanders over the desert seeking a resting-place; and finding none it says, “I will go back to the home I left”. So it remains and finds the house swept clean, and tidy. Off it goes and collects seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they all come in; and in the end the man’s plight is worse than before’ (Luke 11:24-26). According to Mark (3:11-12), ‘The unclean spirits … when they saw him, would fall at his feet and cry aloud “You are the Son of God”’. And Luke (4:41) says, ‘Devils came out of many of them shouting, “You are the Son of God”’. In contrast however, when people wished to be cured, in several circumstances, like blind Bartimaeus (Mark 10:46-52) they address him as ‘Son of David’ as they identify him as the Messiah. But Satan himself challenges Jesus to demonstrate his powers as the Son of God (Matthew 4:5-7).
While many cures are attributed to Jesus, Matthew, Mark and Luke agree on only five cures: the cleansing of a leper, Simon Peter’s mother-in-law, the Gadarene swine, Jairus’ daughter and a woman ‘sick of the bloody issue’ (as in the AV).
The most detailed account of exorcism is in the ‘country of the Gadarenes’. Matthew (8:28) speaks of the two lunatics ‘possessed by devils’ whereas Mark and Luke record only one. In both of them (eg. Mark (5:9-10) the devil says his name is ‘Legion’ (a Roman allusion) and Jesus is addressed as ‘Son of the Most High God’ (Mark 5:7). The ‘Legion’ begs to let him (them?) into ‘a large herd of pigs’ (Mark says 2000) which raced to the shore and then ‘rushed over the edge into the lake and were drowned’.
Today the Catholic Church continues with the ritual of exorcism but only behind closed doors, according to Peter Stanford in an article in the Independent of 24 February 1911. In an interview with the chief exorcist of the diocese of Rome who has dealt with 70,000 or so cases, less than 100 have been accepted as genuine and the symptoms bear no relation to Jesus’ day as they include pieces of radio equipment. Today exorcism is not part of standard psychiatric practice and it seems that only the Catholic Church can at least entertain the possibility. But in Biblical times Jews could believe that as pigs were not kosher they could harbour devils.
The Jews attitude to non-Jews is exemplified again by Jesus himself in his meeting with the Canaanite/Phoenician woman who begs him to cure her daughter who is tortured by a devil. ‘He said to her “Let the children be satisfied first, it’s not fair to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs”’’ (Mark 7:25-30). And it is clear from Matthew (15:24-28) that the ‘children’ are Israelites for Jesus says, ‘I was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel and to them alone’. Romer’s opinion is, ‘the Gospels seem to show that…Jesus was a typical Jewish prophet of his day’ [Romer (p. 163)] and adds to this encounter, ‘And his following description of some Gentile neighbours as “dogs” is an insult that in the East is still considered to be highly offensive’ Romer (p. 178).
In contrast, in John (5:1-9) when a man who has been paralysed for thirty eight years was told to take up his bed and walk at the Sheep Pool in Jerusalem where there is both a Jewish and Greek association. The Sheep Pool has an Aesclepium, a healing shrine dedicated to Aesclepius (Greek Asklepios) where the running water was supposed to have curative properties, while for Jews an angel was supposed to stir the water on occasion. But yet again Jesus tells a Samaritan woman, ‘It is from the Jews that Salvation comes’ (John 4:22).
Dawkins’ comments on sin may be described as pandemic for which only a belief in Jesus was the cure. In Caperaum Mark (2:5) and Luke record that a paralytic man, carried by four men, was let down through the ceiling of a house because of the crowd and Jesus cured him by saying, ‘My son your sins are forgiven’. And in John (9:1-4) Jesus cures a man blind from birth. ‘The disciples ask if he or his parents has sinned and Jesus replied, ‘He was born blind that God’s power might be displayed in curing him’. Romer says, ‘Jesus has affected cures… by word and touch, and the people around him had accepted the treatment because it had been part of Hellenism’. But for Jesus forgiveness of sins was the ultimate panacea.
Hitchens’ view of the Ten Commandments is scathing of the admonition that the sins of the fathers will be visited on their children, ‘even unto the thirds and fourth generation’ he says, ‘This negates the moral and reasonable idea that children are innocent of their parents’ offences’. And he refers to the ‘four famous shall-nots’ which flatly prohibit killing, adultery, theft and false witness thus: ‘It is surely insulting to the people of Moses to imagine that they had come thus far under the impression that they were permissable’ (p. 99). Jesus’ own account of sin was, ‘evil thoughts, acts of fornication, of theft, murder, adultery, ruthless greed and malice, fraud, indecency, envy, slander, arrogance and folly’ (Mark 7:21-23).
It seems incredible today when we are aware of viruses, bacteria and genetic defects that such sins could have caused or prevented the sinners going to hell. But in Catholic doctrine adultery is a ‘mortal sin’ which can damn the soul to hell for eternity. Modern alternatives however are available: marriage guidance, agony aunts, legal separations and divorces which involve equitable settlements. And, to end on a bathetic note, Jesus considered washing the hands before meals an empty Pharisaical ritual. A divine injunction for the NHS? (Mark 7:2-8).
The Parables
The Parables are to be read in context of the Day of Judgement which was felt to be imminent (cf. Luke 19:11-12). He was now close to Jerusalem and they thought that the reign if God might dawn at any moment. The parable of the sower occurs in Matthew (13:4-8) and Mark likens seed on a footpath to those who do not understand the word; seed on rocky ground to those who welcome it with joy but have no staying power; to those who are lured by the false glamour of wealth to seeds sown among thorns; and those who understand to seed that thrives on good soil. Again, for the latter the Kingdom of Heaven is likened to a mustard seed in Matthew (13:33), and in Mark and Luke also, and in addition the discovery of treasure or ‘a pearl of special value’.
But while there is a harvest to come there will also be reaping. ‘The evil one’ sows darnel among the crops ‘but at the end of time… the Son of Man will send out his angels… and all whose deeds are evil will be thrown into the blazing furnace’ (Matthew 13:40-42). And similarly when the final ‘fishing net’ is hauled up ‘worthless fish’ will be thrown away (Matthew 13:47-50). Accompanying the warning however there is hope that it may not be too late to repent. In John (10-11-12) he saves the lost sheep, and ‘there is joy among the angels of God over one who repents’ (Luke 15-10). The parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-24) is in the same vein. Even the repentance by social pariahs such as tax-gatherers (Luke 3:12) and prostitutes were welcomed by John the Baptist (Mark 21-31), and for Jesus Zachaeus and Mary Magdalene are similar examples. So too, is the parable of the man who gave the big dinner party and was rebuffed by his invited guests ‘the poor, the crippled, the blind and the lame’ (Luke 14:21) are welcomed as long as they repent – there is the implication here that, as with the paralytic at the Sheep Pool, that their ailments could have been caused by sin.
Banned from the Kingdom however are the wealthy: ‘It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God’ (Luke 18:25-26) and Mark agrees (10:25). For example, according to Luke (16:19-30) a poor man called Lazarus goes to heaven whereas a disciple cannot take the final step of giving his great wealth to the poor. When however money is used metaphorically such as in the parable of the talents. The accumulation of wealth does not easily translate into piety or God – given virtue. And a similar difficulty arises when a labourer is paid in full like his co-workers is paid in full like his co-workers although he hasn't done a full day's work - not divine guidance that a trade unionist would accept but figuratively a repentant sinner however belated can still be entitles to the joys of heaven (Matthew 20:1-16).
In Luke (19:26-27) when the man initially rejected as king returns he rejects the uneconomic servant and 'as for those enemies of mine who did not want me for their king, bring them here and slaughter them in my presence'. This may be construed as a threat to the religious establishment. There is been more clearer evidence in the parable of the man who let his vineyard (as the Synoptic Gospels record eg. Matthew 21:33-41) and whose servants, sent to collect his share of the proceeds are maltreated or killed. And in the end his own son is killed with the result that 'He will bring them to a bad end (Mark 3:38)' or 'he will come and put the tenants to death' (Luke 20-15-16). And so, 'When the chief priests and Pharisees heard his parables, they saw that he was referring to them; they wanted to arrest him but they were afraid of the people who looked on Jesus as a prophet' (Matthew 21:45-46). As at his trial he was condemned for blasphemy, claiming to be the Son of God it would seem that his parables provoked a similar reaction.
Porter comments, 'It has been suggested that Jesus' parables are primarily concerned with his central theme of the Kingdom, a view with which I agree, but Porter goes on, 'but he may have used them for a variety of purposes, sometimes perhaps simply to emphasise moral questions', but he prefers to treat the parable of 'the Sower' and the Wicked Tenants' as merely allegorical (p.39) without attempting to explain it, and ignoring the plain warning given in the text. Today we have the NHS and social services which care for us but do not necessitate belief and is open to people of other faiths and do not depend on a belief in a Messiah. And while we are aware of disparities in income soaking the rich to give to the poor would not appear to solve the problem. For Jesus the Kingdom would resolve all human ills but he describes it only in similes and is conditional believing in him so that health and economics are no longer problematic. But according to Matthew, the Jews were Jesus' only concern.
The Mission and the Message
Romer, speaking of Paul's testimony says, 'his main theme is Jesus' message' of God's love for the world and also Christ's assertion that the ending of the world is imminent: his historical view is sharp and certain. In comparison the Gospels often seem uncertain of their central message and of their central character: Jesus' purposes on earth seem curiously elusive' (p.170). Leaving aside Jesus' divine status meanwhile as a role model in ordinary life he is less than ideal. 'You are not to set your mind on food and drink: you are not to worry. For all these things are for the heathen to run after: but you have a Father who knows that you need them' (Luke 12:29-33). His disciples were instructed to live off the community and there is no guidance as to how they can otherwise make a living. In Luke (8:1-3) we learn that Jesus' livelihood was secure thanks to a group of women: 'Mary, known as Mary of Magdala... Joanna the wife of Juz... and many others’. These women provided for them out of their own resources'. As Mary had been a prostitute were her 'immoral earnings' savings from her past and where did the other women get their money from in a male dominated society?
When food is provided miraculously Porter says, ‘The feeding of the five thousand seems to be aimed at a Jewish audience… they are divided into groups… the setting is a desert place and there is clear analogy between Jesus’ action and Moses’ provision of food for the Israelites in the wilderness’. Porter also claims that the feeding of the four thousand as it was preceded by a healing in the Decapolis ‘a largely Gentile area’ that ‘the two feedings originally symbolised the call first to Jews and then to Gentiles, to share in the new life that Jesus bestowed’ (p.98-99).
Bread seems to have acquired a metaphorical meaning such as doctrine or belief, and yeast or leaven represented evil and son in Mark there is ‘yeast of the Pharisees’, and in Matthew ‘yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees’, and Luke equates it with the Pharisees’ hypocrisy. Even in the third century AD one teacher refers to ‘the yeast in the dough’ according to Porter. When therefore Jesus describes himself as ‘the bread of life which came down from heaven’ (John 6:41-42) and says ‘I am that living bread which has come down from heaven. If anyone eats this bread he shall live forever’ (John 6:51) he is maintaining that his doctrine is the true one. And so if the feeding stories are read metaphorically and not literally they are no longer miraculous. The philosopher David Hume (1711-76) maintained that there can never be adequate historical evidence for such events, as Bertrand Russell records. Thus when crossing the Sea of Galilee he seems to remind them that hunger for the Word of God is more important than physical hunger. And instead of performing a miracle for them he reminds them of the 12 loaves of ‘bread’ left over from the feeding of the five thousand and complains that they have not understood: ‘How can you fail to see that I was not speaking about bread?’ (Matthew 1-6:11). The reference to the twelve baskets may refer to ‘bread’ for the Twelve Tribes of whom they were promised to be judges when they ascended to heaven. ‘Man cannot live on bread alone; he lives on every word that God utters’. Parables and later, in John’s Gospel (16:25-26) Jesus announces that he will not use figures of speech any more.
Today it is easier to accept the feeding incidents as metaphors. When Jesus finds a fig tree that has no fruit instead of using his miraculous powers he curses it and it withers (Matthew 21:18-22). Which in human terms is a peevish act and even taken as metaphors the scale of Jesus’ audiences at the so-called miracles strains credulity because impassioned orator as Jesus probably was his words could have not carried over the area occupied by such large crowds. Hyperbole was apparent in the size of the herd of Gadarene swine and seems probable here… However, there is little doubt that Jesus wished a larger audience and so in John’s Gospel (21:17) he commands Peter to ‘Feed my lambs’.
The Sermon on the Mount in Matthew (5.6 and 7) and on the plain Luke (6-20-40) seem to be directed at different audiences - Matthew’s Jewish and Luke’s Hellenistic. Porter alludes to contextual problems thus: ‘All the discourses in Matthew, Mark and Luke are actually compilations of individual savings. For example, sayings that appear in a discourse in one gospel sometimes occur in another gospel in a quite different context… The discourse is represented as being addressed to a general audience… but it seems likely that originally it was intended for the disciples alone’ (p. 149). However, the Jewish/Hellenistic dichotomy remains, but both, as Porter says, ‘represent the proclamation of the Kingdom by the Messiah’. He goes on to say that the Beatitudes (Blessings) are modelled on similar sayings in the Hebrew Bible and other Jewish writings such as verses in Isaiah
(p. 149). In Matthew there are instructions as to how one is to act and pray in the synagogue and in particular to avoid the ‘heathen’ practice of babbling on. And there is an injunction (originally to the Disciples?) ‘Unless you show yourselves better men than the Pharisees and the doctors of the law you can never enter the Kingdom of Heaven. And again it seems that the disciples are told, ‘Do not give dogs what is holy’, which recalls his encounter with the Canaanite/Phoenician woman and is echoed again in Matthew (7:6), ‘Do not feed your pearls to pigs’.
Jesus insists that he has not come ‘to abolish the Law and the prophets but to complete’, but in fact he strikes a new and individual note: ‘Love your neighbour’ becomes ‘Always treat others as you would wish them to treat you’ (Matthew 7:12) which makes good sense. But ‘Hate your enemies’ becomes ‘Love your enemies’, which will assure you of ‘a rich reward in heaven’ but are ‘the dogs’ and ‘the heathen’ included? And what about the Pharisees and the Doctors of the Law? are to be ignored? Jesus’ comments seem to be designed to avoid litigation: ‘If someone sues you come to terms with him promptly when you are both on your way to court to avoid being put in jail’. Again, ‘an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth’ becomes ‘If a man sues you for your shirt you are to let him have your coat aswell’. But these words are directed at Jews and did not apply to the Romans against whom they revolted in 60 AD.
Similarly when Jesus uses the word ‘brother’ he means a fellow Jew. ‘If your brother commits a sin, go and take the matter up with him, strictly between yourselves and if he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But in the end if even an appeal to the congregation fails ‘you must treat him as you would a pagan or a tax-gatherer’ (Matthew 18:15-17).
The Sermon on the Plain seems to be more Hellenistic. It has only four Beatitudes but has four 'woes' which are threats to the rich, the well-fed, the happy and the popular. Here 'turn the other cheek' is to be taken literally and it gives a thief your shirt as well as your coat. The only obvious Jewish allusion is to the Son of Man. Porter says these Sermons have a common ancestry but Luke's version seems like an abbreviation of Matthew's . The full implications of these Sermons in the context of the immanence of the Day of Judgement will be examined later.
Identity
The question of Jesus' identity becomes crucial at his trial before the Sanhedrin and Pilate, for it determines his fate. Three titles emerge: 'Messiah', 'Son of Man' and 'Son of God'. Again, the historical context is important. Porter says: 'In the first century CE there was a general expectation among the Jews that God would shortly intervene to end the preset age and usher in a new world of perfection and righteousness. Some believed that God would act directly, others that he would send an intermediary: his 'Anointed One' or Messiah (Greek 'Christos'). 'Messiah' was a title given in the Hebrew Bible. The 'Saviour' was thus seen as a king, a descendant of David (Mark 12:33-37 and Luke 20:41-44), and he asserts that he was born before Abraham (John 8:58). He further departs from the traditional Messianic pattern by not assuming a military role: instead he did conform to the expected role of healer - to his patients he was the 'Son of David'. Porter says that Jesus equivocated about his being the Messiah at his trial, ignoring Jesus' declaration 'I am' in Mark (14:62), and that explains that 'to admit or deny his messiahship outright was to lay himself open to serious consequences - the wrath of the authorities or rejection by many followers (pp. 164-5). And Porter goes on: 'When Pilate asks if he is the 'King of the Jews' - the Messianic claim that was of most concern to a Gentile ruler - Jesus' response is again equivocal'. But Jesus said that his kingdom 'was not of this world', and so it would seek that he was, according to his own lights, speaking the truth, for he believed he was the Son of God, as he had confessed before the Sanhedrin, and so the term 'Messiah' with its full Jewish connotation, did not apply.
When dealing with the problem of the Son of Man, Porter records, 'its frequency in the gospels is more than 60 times' (I made it 72) and only 3 times in the rest of the New Testament', and goes on to say that Jesus did not necessarily identify himself with the figure'. But he contradicts himself by admitting that Jesus' remarks on Daniel (7:13) 'may genuinely be founded on Jesus' own view of himself as e coming divine agent of the final judgement'. And Porters semantic analysis of the original Aramaic context shows that 'Son of Man' could be translated as the impersonal pronoun 'one', or of modesty or to 'soften an unacceptable or unpleasant statement'.
In the Authorised Version the passage in Daniel reads as follows: 'I saw in the night visions, and behold, One like the son of man come with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations and languages should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed’ Jesus alludes to this in Matthew (24:15-16): 'So when you see' the abomination of desolation of which the prophet Daniel spoke... then those who are in Judaea must rake to the hills', as this foreshadows his role as Judge on the Last Day. 'Son of Man' as a title is more apocalyptic than Messianic and as it follows Jesus' warning about false Messiahs it seems almost that 'Messiah' for him, with its traditional Jewish connotation was suspect and suggest why he denied a messianic link with King David. And so Jesus saw himself as an omnipotent divine Judge and not as a mortal with a messianic pedigree who would liberate Israel. Porter records that 'later rabbis identified the figure with the Messiah but there is no evidence that they did so as early as Jesus' day (Porter p. 168-1/2).
As for the title 'Son of God' it has no connection with the messianic tradition or the Son of Man so it only occurs in the Gospels. Porter says, 'to profess that Jesus is the Son of God has been central to the Christian faith from the earliest times. Nowhere, in the gospels is the title found on Jesus' own lips, but his habit of addressing God as his father implies not only that he saw himself to be God's son in a special sense (Porter p.166). And he points out that in studying the parable of the 'Wicked Tenant', ‘all commentators agree that the parable is an allegory and that the landowner is God, the vineyard Israel and the son Jesus' (Porter p. 166-7). But he omits to mention that God slays them all after they have killed his Son, and that the Pharisees saw that it was a threat directed against them.
Hitchens describing C. S. Lewis as 'the most Christian apologist' quotes him: 'A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great more teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg - or else he would be the Devil of Hell, you must make your own choice. Either this man was or is the Son of God, or else a madam and something worse (p.119). Hitchens does not accept his reasoning: 'which takes his two false alternatives as exclusive antitheses and then uses them to form a crude non sequitur' (p.120). Dawkins is also scathing: 'C. S. Lewis (who should have known better), States that, since Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, he must have been either right, or else insane, or a liar: "mad, bad oe God"' (p.92).
These people, both atheists, reach the same conclusions as the Jews in Jesus' time - mad, an imposter, and added blasphemer. Jesus claimed the he could forgive sins and that he was 'Sovereign over the Sabbath' (Matthew 12:8). They answered, 'Some say John the Baptist , others Elijah, others Jeremiah or one of the other prophets'. ' "And you", he asked, ‘who do you think I am?’. Peter answered, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God" (Matthew 16:13-16). This of course is the general Christian attitude - the Son of Man as a title disappeared from the early church (Porter p.168-9). And there is clear evidence of the Jews' scepticism and their doubts about Jesus' identity: for example in Mark 3:21: 'people were saying that he was out of his mind', and at 3:22: “The doctors of the law ... said, He is possessed by Beelzebub". And again at John 8:48-49: 'Are we not right in saying that you are a Samaritan, and that you are possessed'. And again at John 10:19: 'He is possessed, he is raving'. And in Capernaum when Jesus said, 'unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood you can have no life on you’... 'Many of his disciples on hearing exclaimed, "this is more than we can stomach"... and from that time on many of his disciples [followers] withdrew and no longer went about with him' (John 6:52-60).
His family connection raised doubts in Matthew (14:53-56) and Mark(6:3-4). In Nazareth, as Luke relates (4:20-30) Jesus read from the scroll of the prophet Isaiah which said, 'The spirit of The Lord is upon me because he has anointed me'. And Jesus said, "Today in your very hearing this text has come true". He went on to recall retribution on those who had rejected prophets in the past which the whole congregation construed as a threat and so they threw him out of town and took him to the brow of the hill... meaning to hurl him over the edge'. And he was threatened with death at John (5:17-18) not only for breaking the Sabbath but 'by calling God his own father, he claimed equality with god'.
Vermes in 'The Dead Sea Scrolls in English' sums up the position thus 'The heavenly apocalyptic figure called "son of man" a subject on which New Testament scholars have wasted a considerable amount of ink 'is missing' at Qumran. But the fact remains that Jesus identifies with the Son of Man in Daniel and saw himself as King and Judge on the Last Day. To which it may added that there is no mention of the Son of Man being also the Son of God in Daniel or in the Jewish scriptures or in the Messianic tradition, so that we have only Jesus' own word for it that he was the Son of God.
Betrayal
At the Last Supper, according to Mark (14:17-21) Jesus announced that 'one of the Twelve' would betray him and that 'The Son of Man is going the way appointed for him in the Scriptures'. But in the book of Daniel there is no mention of betrayal. And if the betrayal was fore-ordained why was Judas told earlier that he would be one of the Twelve Judges of the tribes of Israel (Matthew 19:28-29). And it is credible that God allowed Judas to be possessed by Satan, and then caused him to commit suicide (Matthew 27:5)? Moreover, Judas has been entrusted with their funds and did not betray Jesus for thirty pieces of silver 'for he threw the money down in the Temple' (Matthew 27:5). His motive, and this must be speculative', may be that he expected that Jesus' arrest was imminent and that his own life was in danger, as did the other disciples when they fled from the scene in Gethsemane, including, as Mark records' (14:51-52) 'a young man with nothing on but a linen cloth. They tried to seize him; but he slipped out of the linen cloth and ran away naked'.
None of the Disciples were in fact arrested although, according to John (18:10-11)' 'Simon Peter drew the sword he was wearing and struck at the High Priest's servant, cutting off his right ear'. The other Gospels refer only to, 'one of the party', and Luke adds that Jesus 'touched the man's ear and healed him' (Luke 22:51). Luke adds that Jesus had instructed, 'whoever has a purse had better take it with him, and his pack too; and if he has no sword, let him sell his cloak to buy one. The Disciples replied, 'we have two swords here' and Jesus said, “Enough, enough”. (Luke 22:38). Porter describes the episode as 'some kind of brawl' and Jesus' instructions as 'a somewhat obscure package' only, and makes no reference to Simon Peter who re-appears at the time of the trial, having denied involvement three times and was not identified because the arrest was made in darkness - lanterns and torches are mentioned and this also explains why Judas had to identify Jesus. Hitchens missed this point (p.210). Jesus asks his captors why he had not been arrested in the synagogue but it would seem that the attack took place where there could not have been public support for Jesus.
And so we find Jesus having promised Judas a throne and entrusted him with their money, only realising that he would betray him at the Last Supper, and Peter, the Rock, or another disciple committing GBH, and not loving his enemies as instructed in the Sermon on the Mount and on the Plain. And of course Jesus himself is instructing his followers to arm themselves. What them has happened to the Christian message?
The Trial
At the house of the High Priest, Jesus is asked, 'Are you the Messiah, the Son of God?' and Jesus replies, ' The words are yours' according to Matthew. In Mark the question is, 'Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?' and Jesus says, 'I am'. In Luke we read, 'Are you the Messiah?' and Jesus answers, ' If I tell you, you'll will not believe me'. 'You are the Son of God then?'. 'It is you who say that I am'. In the three synoptic gospels Jesus' final retort is almost identical: 'You will see from now on the Son of Man seated at the right hand of God and coming on the clouds of heaven I'. And so he is accused of blasphemy and sentenced to death.
As mentioned above Jesus had disclaimed lineal decent from David as tradition required, and there is no scriptural authority for God having a son and such a claim was blasphemous according to the laws of Moses. Jesus seems to equivocated about the title of Messiah but not about the Son of Man being the Son of God. In these circumstances it is little wonder that the Jews could not accept his claim. However, the tradition which developed over the years accepts the title of a Messiah which is an innovation when coupled with the Son of God, while the Son of Man which Jesus insisted on' is ignored as is the fact that he did not appear at the right hand of God coming on the clouds of heaven.
At the trial before Pilate 'Scholars agree that the principal reasons for Pilate's decision to execute Jesus is reflected in the placard fixed to the cross upon which he was crucified he had claimed to be King of the Jews in Pilate's eyes'. Thus Romer comments, 'Pontius Pilate who is known to have been a ruthless, insensitive administrator is portrayed in the Gospels as a bemused bureaucrat and ‘the Jews’ - the population of the city - are seen as a single vociferous voice in the hubbub of Jerusalem . The Gospels were eager to excuse the Roman authorities for Jesus' death (p.174). But the placard shows Pilate's contempt for both Jesus and the Jews. When the Jewish chief priests protests that it should have written ‘He claimed to be King of the Jews’, Pilate replied, 'What I have written I have written' (John 19:21-22)
Jesus asserts, 'My kingdom does not belong to this world. If it did my followers would be fighting to save me from arrest by the Jews' (John 18:36) and this is a clear indication that he did not see himself as the Messiah of tradition - a military liberator. His role as Messiah was as the Son of God, but the people who flocked to him, the religious establishment and Pilate took the traditional view and that may be why he tells Pilate, 'The words ate yours' and he does not accept the traditional connotation. His refusal to answer the charges against him could have been construed by Pilate as insolence. John's account of Pilate's responses is unconvincing as also is Jesus' responses to the High Priest, which were regarded as truculent by a temple policeman who struck him.
Porter sums up the Sanhedrin's position: 'Taken as a whole [various grounds given] suggest that Jesus was viewed as one who would stir up discontent with the accepted religion and social order, and as such posed a threat to the stability of the whole region' (p.118). It may be added that in a recent Channel 4 documentary Howard Jacobson, the novelist and columnist in The Independent, dismissed the story of Bar-Abbas as fictional, which further questions Pilate's attempt to conciliate the Jews. And it should be remembered that the Roman soldiers mocked Jesus, arrayed him in purple with a crown of thorns, which Luke attributes to Herod (23:11-12). And finally, the Gospels' learning in favour of Pilate shifts most of the blame on the Jews, which has culminated in the Holocaust and Hitchens points out that 'It was not until two decades after the Second World War that the Vatican formally withdrew the charge of "deicide" against the Jewish people as a whole' (p.111).
The Crucifixion
Romer records that, 'Spartacus, the leader of the slave rebellion of 70BC, had a prisoner crucified in the centre of his camp to show his followers what awaited them if they should lose. Crucifixion was considered to be one of the most severe Roman punishments, worse than decapitation, burning or exposure to wild beasts... Death usually came as a result of exposure' (pp.178-9).
Porter says that crucifixion 'was confined to slaves and foreigners, Roman citizens being exempt' (p.124). Porter seems to voice general scepticism about the accounts given in the Gospels: 'It is unlikely that Jesus spoke all seven of the utterances attributed to him'. For example, ‘Father forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing’, (Luke 27-34) is questionable, since it is absent from several empty manuscripts. Similar too in Luke (24:43) Jesus promises to one of the two criminals crucified beside him that they would be with him in paradise 'may reflect the evangelist's own belief that the righteous enter a realm of bliss immediately upon death' (p.126). So too Jesus' recorded conduct to his mother is doubtful.
Porter goes on: ‘The gospels include four utterances at the moment of death, all influenced by the Psalms. Mark and Matthew report only one of these and it has perhaps the best claim to historically: "My God, why have you forsaken me?" ... The early church may have come to understand the utterance - the opening lines of Psalm 22 - as God's rejection of Jesus, and hence the other gospels omitted or replaced it. But these words need not to be taken as a cry of hopelessness - Psalm 22 goes on to reassure the sufferer of God's help. Mark gives the saying in Aramaic, Jesus' own tongue, which argues for its authenticity. But Matthew reads 'Eli' (my God) in Hebrew, which may explain why a bystander thought Jesus was calling on Elijah. It is also possible that in his own tongue, Aramaic, he felt abandoned by God. If then crucifixion was part of the divine plan why then did Jesus complain that he had been abandoned by God? It is little wonder then that the early church had difficulty with these words, as Porter said (p.126) and the other utterances were fictions designed to reinforce the belief in Christ and making the Cross a symbol of Hope and not despair. But again, the early church although they believed in the authenticity of Jesus, hears only a cry of despair.
The Resurrection
All four Gospels agree that Joseph of Arithmathea got permission from Pilate to collect the body. Joseph is variously described as 'a man if means' in Matthew, 'a respected member of the Council who was eagerly awaiting the Kingdom of God' (Mark): 'a good upright man who had dissented from the policy of the Council' (Luke): and 'a secret disciple for fear of the Jews' (John). John adds that he was joined by Nicodemus 'The man who first visited Jesus by night' who brought more than half a hundred weight of myrrh and they placed him in a new tomb in a garden near Golgotha (John 19:39-40).
The women who watched the interment were: Mary of Magdala and 'the other Mary' (Matthew); Mary of Magdala, and the other Mary of Joseph (Mark); 'Mary of Magdala, Mary, mother of Joseph and Joanna (Luke); and John does not record any. On the Sabbath, Mary of Magdala, and 'the other Mary' came to look at the grave (Matthew); in Mark, Mary of Magdala, Mary, the other Mary of James and Salome came; in Luke, Mary of Magdala, Mary, the mother of James and Joanna; and in John only Mary of Magdala is mentioned. Thus all four Gospels agree that the only woman who saw the interment and visited the empty tomb was Mary Magdalene.
The Gospels differ in the women's accounts of the empty tomb. In Matthew an angel appears, rolls away the stone, the terrified Roman guards 'lay like the dead'. Jesus, however, suddenly appeared and they prostrated themselves and clasped his feet. He told them to instruct 'his brothers' to leave for Galilee where they will see him (Matthew 28:2-7)
In Mark (6:1-11) the stone has already been rolled away women saw, ‘A young man… wearing a white robe’ who tells them that Jesus will go on before them to Galilee. They then run away in terror, said nothing to anybody ‘for they were afraid’. Mark states that Jesus also appeared to Mary alone ‘from whom he had formerly cast out seven devils’, but Jesus’ ‘mourning and sorrowful brothers’ did not believe her, the impression being that she was emotionally disturbed. In Luke (24:2-11) the stone had been rolled away ‘and suddenly two men in dazzling garments were at their side’. They say that Jesus had anticipated his fate and foretold that he would arise on the third day. They report to ‘the Eleven’, ‘But the story appeared to them to be nonsense, and they would not believe them’. In John Simon Peter and ‘the disciple whom Jesus loved’ found the tomb empty and went home. Mary, however, weeps peers into the tomb and sees ‘two angels in white’. They ask why she is weeping and she says, ‘They have taken my Lord away’ – she believes that Joseph or Arimathea and Nicodemus have removed the body and does not suspect that anything supernatural had occurred, even though she is talking to angels. Then she turns around, Jesus is there but she thinks he is the gardener at first. He tells her, ‘I am ascending to my Father and she gave the disciples the message’ (John 20:10-20).
The evidence of the presence of angels at the tomb depends upon the women mentioned above and invites scepticism for the Gospel testimony. The Disciples did not believe them and Mary Magdalene’s lone encounter with Jesus is particularly suspect as Nark records because of her mental condition – and she is the only witness accepted by all four Gospels. Porter says, ‘For women to be credited with the first testimony to the Resurrection is remarkable for the time, and this makes a strong case for accepting that the Gospel accounts had some sort of historical basis’. But Porter admits, ‘Under Jewish law, women were not permitted as witnesses in court, and the male disciples at first rejected what women told them’ (p.129). But this ignores the obvious inadequacies of their evidence and doubts about the mental state of Mary Magdalene, the sole witness the four Gospels agree was present.
Additions to the evidence in Matthew are, as Porter says, probably fictitious: ‘This story is unlikely to be historic’, referring to the claim that, ‘the Temple authorities bribed the guards at the tomb to say that the disciples had stolen the corpse’ (p.128). It is unlikely that Pilate would have been the place it is today. Certainly the simplest explanation is that Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus moved the body because Mary Magdalene at least has seen the interment, Pilate would not have allowed them to take the body unless they, as trusted members of the Council would secretly dispose of it.
Like Mary, the Disciples too do not believe in a supernatural intervention although the Gospels claim that Jesus had forewarned them. For example in Matthew (12:40-41) Jonah was in the sea monster’s belly for three days and three nights, and in the same way the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the bowels of the earth. In Mark (9:31-32): ‘The Son of Man is now to be given up into the power of man, and they will kill him, and three days after being killed, he will rise again’. And Luke: ‘He will be handed over to the foreign power. He will be mocked, maltreated and spat upon. They will flog him and kill him. And on the third day he will rise again’ (18:32-34). ‘But they understood nothing of this; they did not grasp what he was talking about; its meaning was concealed from them’ (Luke 18:34). In Matthew and Mark there are three such prophecies. When therefore the Disciples believed Jesus to be divine in their initial disbelief in the Resurrection is inexplicable – if of course these quotations are true. Porter says, ‘Each evangelist presents his own individual account of the events that followed the entombment of Jesus, and although scholars have often sought to reconcile the four narratives, this is not really possible. Indeed, the divergence becomes even greater somewhat later’ (p.128). In Matthew the Eleven make their way to Galilee ‘to the mountain where Jesus had told them to meet him. They fell prostrate before him, though some were doubtful’ (Matthew 28:16-18). But why? In Mark, ‘Later he appears in a different guise to two men on their way to the country. They took the news to the others, but again no one believed them… Afterwards when the Eleven were at the table Jesus appeared and reprimanded them for disbelieving those who had seen him rise from the dead’ and then after charging them with their evangelical mission ‘He was taken up to heaven and he took his seat at the right hand of God’ (Mark 16:12-19). Luke says ‘On that same day (Sunday) two men were walking to Emmaeus… when Jesus joined them. They did not recognise him. They discussed recent events but only when he broke bead with them did they realise that it was indeed him. They returned immediately to the Eleven in Jerusalem who told them that Jesus has appeared to Simon. Suddenly Jesus appeared and they thought they had seen a ghost but he reassured them that he was flesh and blood and invited them to touch him. They offered him a piece of fish which he ate. He reminded them that the Messiah was to suffer death and to rise on the third day – which does not form part of Jewish tradition – and proclaimed that repentance in his name would bring forgiveness of sins. They walked towards Bethany. He blessed them and parted from them after telling them to stay in Jerusalem.
In John’s Gospel, Jesus makes three appearances: 1. ‘Later that Sunday morning he appeared to the Disciples, apart from Thomas, who was absent and who refused to believe unless he could see the marks of the nails on his hands and he could put his hand in to Jesus’ side… 2. A week later Jesus invited him to do so, Thomas exclaimed ‘My Lord and my God’. Sometime later Jesus appeared on a bench at the Sea of Tiberius but was recognised at first only by ‘the disciples Jesus loved’ who told Peter, ‘It is the Lord’ – although Thomas was present he had not recognised him. Following Jesus’ instructions they had a huge catch and Jesus shared a breakfast of fish with them. (John 20:19-25, 26-29 and 21:4-14).
The truth about the Resurrection is elusive – all four Gospels agree that the tomb was empty and that Mary Magdalene was there. But her conduct varies: in Matthew she saw an angel and hurried from the tomb in great joy, met Jesus, fell prostrate before him and clasped his feet. In Mark she saw one angel. She was the first to see Jesus but the Disciples did not believe her. In Luke she saw two angels, did not see Jesus, and the Disciples did not believe her. In John she saw two angels but thought a gardener was Jesus. Which account then is correct? In particular, Mary’s lack of surprise on meeting the angels and merely questioning them about what Joseph of Arimathaea and Nicodemus had done with the body, strains credulity. And why is there no agreement about the number of angels? This is part of a larger discrepancy: in Matthew there are 26 references to angels, beginning with Gabriel whose predictions were false; 23 in Luke; 4 in Mark; and only 3 in John. If there were indeed angels flying about why then didn’t the Sadducees believe they existed? They were moneys and presumably better educated and so presumably dismissed them as mere superstition. We had a somewhat similar problem with fairies.
In the alleged other appearances of Jesus there are no focal points in common and so there is no corroboration. As to recognition, the doubt of some Disciples at the mountain, of the two men on the way to Emmaeus, and Thomas’s failure to identify Jesus at the Lake of Tiberias do not lend credibility to these incidents.
There is another complication: the anointing of Jesus with oil took place in Bethany, where Mary, the sister of Lazarus lived and yet tradition holds that Mary Magdalene did the anointing so we have two Marys in Bethany or are they the same person? The Jewish authorities treated the raising of Lazarus as a dangerous rumour, not a miracle, and it appears only in John. As the story came from Mary and Martha this may explain why the Disciples did not believe Mary Magdalene’s account of what happened at Jesus’ tomb. This is considered in an appendix. But quite apart from this Mary Magdalene cannot be considered as a reliable witness, yet the story of the Resurrection depends main on her.
The Second Coming
If the Resurrection did take place Jesus' ascent to heaven, as Porter says, ‘This appears only in Acts 1-2 – 11 as a genuine historical fact’. Jesus had prophesied at this trail before the Sanhedrin, “You will see the Son of Man seated on the right hand of God and coming with the clouds of heaven” (Mark 14:62-63), and Matthew adds, “from now on”, (26:64-5). Even before his trial he had announced, “And they will see the Son of Man coming on a cloud with great power and glory. When all this begins to happen, stand upright and hold your head high, because your liberation is near” (Luke 21: 27-28). And “they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with great power and glory. With a trumpet blast he will send out his angels and he will gather his chosen from the four winds, from the farthest bounds of heaven on every side” (Matthew 24: 30-31).
All these were references to the Day of Judgement, ‘the Last Day’, which was imminent: “I tell you this: the present generation will live to see it all. Heaven and earth will pass away... But about this day and hour no-one knows, not even the angels in heaven, not even the Son, only the Father” (Matthew 24: 24-26). And, “there are some of those standing here who will not taste death before they have seen the Kingdom of judgement for this world... and I shall draw all nations to myself, when I am lifted up from the earth”. (John 12:31-52) Romer records that Paul too thought that the Last Day was imminent (p.170). Porter says ‘The members of the early church...believed that Jesus would return to establish his kingdom soon’ (Thess 4:15-18). John the Baptist had said, ‘Repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is upon you’ and ‘the one who comes after me... will gather the wheat into his granary, but he will burn the chaff on a fire that can never go out’ (Matthew 3:3, 7-12) and the Book of Revelation ends with, “He who gives this testimony speaks: Yes, I am coming soon”.
The warning signs are described in Luke (21:25-27); ‘Portents will appear in sun, moon and stars. On earth nations will stand helpless, not knowing which way to turn, from the roar and the surge of the sea; men will faint with terror at the thought of all that is coming upon the world; for the celestial powers will be shaken’. Porter omits all of this, so, while Jesus warned of false Messiahs and associated the portents with the true Messiah, his own prophecy was false. Hitchins comments: ‘in the city of Jerusalem, there is a special ward in the mental hospital for those who represent a special danger to themselves and others. These delusioned patients are the sufferes from the “Jerusalem syndrome”’. ‘Police and security officers are trained to recognise them, though their mania is often concealed behind a mask of deceptively beatific calm. They have come to the holy city in order to announce themselves as the Messiah or redeemer, or to proclaim the end of days’ (pp.52-53).
The Sunday Post on 25/5/11 ran two articles on those which they described as ‘Doom Merchants’, in the first Professor O'Donnell of Glasgow University says that they share what psychologists like himself term ‘millennial belief’ which is ‘present throughout history’, and ‘often a central feature of religious cults.... People who feel like outsiders belong to a group which gives them acceptance, and a strong message that they will be “saved” if they behave in a certain way’. And ‘when they wake up the next day and find the world's still there, they enter a state of cognitive dissonance – a contradiction between what they believe and what actually happened’. And the reporter adds, ‘It's not just crackpots who get caught in the hysteria – seeming rational people can all fall under its spell’.
The second article recalls the sad story of David Icke, ‘a former footballer and BBC sports pundit’ who was held up to public ridicule when on a Terry Wogan show he prophesied that the world would end in 1997 and that he was a son of God. This todays seems to be a mixture of millennial belief and sheer irrationality. But the irony of the situation is that Jesus' predictions of doom and claim to be the Son of God both of which were to be imminently manifest have not materialised but have been accepted as fact for more than two thousand years.
At a funeral service we can still hear, “I am the resurrection and the life. If a man has faith in me, even though he dies, he should come to life; and no-one who is alive and has faith will never die” (John 11:25-26). In John we find, “He who puts his faith in the Son has hold of eternal life” (3:36). Jesus' pronouncement, “A time is coming, indeed it is already here, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and all who hear shall come to life” (John 5:25). But the dead have not heard his voice, and neither have we.
Appendix – Mary of Magdala
All four Gospels agree that a women annointed Jesus with a perfumed oil. Matthew, Mark and John say it was at Bethany but disagree about its exact location. Matthew and Mark say it was at the house of Simon the leper, John at the home of Mary and Martha, while, curiously, Luke has Jesus dining with a Pharisee called Simon, like the leper. In not a single case is the woman named, but John identifies her as the sister of Lazarus and as ‘the women who annointed the Lord with oil and wiped his feet with her hair’. (John 11: 1-3). This seems to echo Luke's account: ‘The woman... wetted his feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair, kissing them and anointing them’ (Luke 7:38-39). Luke adds ‘That she was living an immoral life in the town’ and that Jesus forgave her for her sins. And in the very next chapter we find, ‘Mary, known as Mary of Magdala, from who seven devils had come out’ (Luke 8:2-3) a statement similar to Mark's : ’Mary of Magdala from whom he had formerly cast out seven devils’ (Mark 16: 9-11). According to Porter tradition has it that the woman who did the anointing was Mary Magdalene, but lists Mary, the sister of Lazarus separately.
There are minor discrepancies in describing the oil. In Matthew it is a ‘small bottle of fragrant oil, very costly’; in Mark it is ‘a small bottle of pure nard’: in Luke it is myrrh in a small flask’; and in John it is a ‘pound of very costly perfume, oil of pure nard’. The relative chronology is, as usual, vague and inconsistent. In Matthew there is a plot to kill Jesus which ‘must not be done during the festival’, referring apparently to the Passover. In Mark, anointing takes place two days before the Passover. In Luke there is no indication of time, and in John, his reference to the anointing quoted above seems to refere to an earlier incident but he then tells of a visit by Jesus to celebrate the raising of Lazarus six days before the Passover when Mary (again?) annoints the feet of Jesus and wipes them with her hair (John 12:3). But what is most strange is that the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke), make no mention of Lazarus whose emergence from the tomb was allegedly witnessed, unlike that of Jesus, and whose interment lasted a day longer.
The Jewish authorities did not believe a miracle had taken place for they planned to kill both Jesus and Lazaris (John 11:53 and 12:10-11). So why did the Synpotic Gospels not record it? The only named witnesses were Mary and Martha – the Jews who came to condole with them are not named, nor are any of the Disciples. And so this begs the question: did the Disciples, like the Jewish authorities, not believe that a miracle had taken place? Thus the credibility of the evidence of Mary and Martha is open to question and this may explain why Mary's account of the Resurrection was regarded as nonsense, underlined by the suggestion that her mental health was in doubt.
She was called Mary of Magdala but the anointing did not take place there – it signifies that she was a Galilean like Jesus and may have been notorious in Jerusalem. But to name her as at least a party to a lie about the raising of Lazarus would have undermined her testimony about the Resurrection.”
Ps. Thanks are due to my wife Kay for her constant support, to Allan Cameron who went out of his way to make the arrangements and to Dawn MacKeddie for her patience in re-typing of the script.
