and they brought young children to him
that he should touch them
and his disciples rebuked those that brought them
but when Jesus saw it,
he was much displeased,
and said unto them,
“suffer the little children to come unto me,
and forbid them not:
for of such is the kingdom of God.
verily I say unto you
whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child
he shall not enter therein"
and he took them up in his arms,
put his hands upon them,
and blessed them
If we are looking for Gentle Jesus Meek and Mild, this is where we can find him. I remember Mrs Huber telling the story in Sunday School. The Mummies and Daddies have bring their children to Jesus. The disciples send them away. Jesus has been preaching all day. He’s hot and tired and needs a rest. Come back tomorrow, can’t you? But this makes Jesus angry. Of course I have time to talk to the children, he says. So it’s a message to famous and important people: don’t be one of those spoiled celebrities who hides away from his fans. Be like Jesus who could always make time to sign one more autograph. Or else it’s a message to us kids. Don’t think God doesn’t care about you just because you’re little. Don’t think God doesn’t hear your prayers. Jesus always has time to bless little children. First let me hear how the children stood round his knee and I shall fancy his blessing resting on me…
Am I the only one who spent decades not having the faintest idea what the word “bless” means? God was clearly a person whose main occupation was blessing people, but who had to be reminded to do it on frequent occasions, but exactly what this “blessing” activity involved, I was never quite sure.
Back in Galilee sick people mobbed Jesus wherever he went. They thought that if they even touched his clothes they would be cured. But these aren't sick kids. It has got to the point where even the healthy want Jesus to touch them. You can’t blame the disciples for wanting to get rid of them.
But Jesus is quite happy to see the children. They aren’t “just kids”: they are very important people; especially important people. The kind of people who will own the Kingdom of God. People who don’t receive the Kingdom in the same way as “those of this sort” won’t even be allowed in.
He puts it that way round: not “people who are like children will be allowed into heaven” but “people who are not like children won’t be.”
"Receiving" means something like “welcoming” — showing hospitality. If someone didn’t recieve the disciples during their missionary journey they were told to just turn their backs and walk away. Just before leaving Galilee the disciples were told that receiving a child was the same as receiving Jesus — and that welcoming Jesus was the same as welcoming God.
FUN FACT:
The word "suffer" in this context means "permit" and has nothing to do with cruelty or the Moors Murders. See also "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"
and when he was gone forth into the way
there came one running,
and kneeled to him,
and asked him,
“good master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?”
and Jesus said unto him,
“why callest thou me good?
there is none good but one,
that is, God.
thou knowest the commandments,
do not commit adultery,
do not kill,
do not steal,
do not bear false witness,
defraud not,
honour thy father and mother”
and he answered and said unto him,
“master, all these have I observed from my youth.”
then Jesus beholding him loved him,
and said unto him,
“one thing thou lackest
go thy way,
sell whatsoever thou hast,
and give to the poor,
and thou shalt have treasure in heaven
and come,
take up the cross,
and follow me”
and he was sad at that saying,
and went away grieved:
for he had great possessions.
and Jesus looked round about,
and saith unto his disciples,
“how hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!”
and the disciples were astonished at his words.
but Jesus answereth again,
and saith unto them,
“children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!
it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle,
than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God”
there came one running,
and kneeled to him,
and asked him,
“good master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?”
and Jesus said unto him,
“why callest thou me good?
there is none good but one,
that is, God.
thou knowest the commandments,
do not commit adultery,
do not kill,
do not steal,
do not bear false witness,
defraud not,
honour thy father and mother”
and he answered and said unto him,
“master, all these have I observed from my youth.”
then Jesus beholding him loved him,
and said unto him,
“one thing thou lackest
go thy way,
sell whatsoever thou hast,
and give to the poor,
and thou shalt have treasure in heaven
and come,
take up the cross,
and follow me”
and he was sad at that saying,
and went away grieved:
for he had great possessions.
and Jesus looked round about,
and saith unto his disciples,
“how hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!”
and the disciples were astonished at his words.
but Jesus answereth again,
and saith unto them,
“children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!
it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle,
than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God”
Point 1: The guy who runs after Jesus is definitely rich; but there is no reason to think that he is either young or a ruler. He claims to have led a moral life since he was a young man: if anything that suggests that he is getting on a bit. Maybe that is why he is starting to think about mortality.
Point 2: There is absolutely no reason to think that The Needle’s Eye was a gate in Jerusalem. It’s a nice bit of homiletics, but it isn’t what the passage says. Jesus is talking about the possible and the impossible. It is really, really hard for camels to squeeze through narrow gates. It is physically impossible for them to squeeze through needle's eyes.
Point 3: The Greek word for rope is kamelos.
There are lots of clever ways of misreading this passage.
You could point out that the man claims to have kept the Ten Commandments, plus that extra one about defrauding that came in from somewhere — but doesn't mention the other six hundred provisions of the Jewish law. He may be righteous, but he isn’t religious.
Or you could say sticking to the rules by itself isn’t; what matters; what matters is wanting to stick to them; following them on the inside. There’s not much good saying “I have never cheated on my wife” if you are adding “more’s the pity” under your breath.
Or you could say that the problem is self-righteousness. It’s better to be bad and know that you are bad than to be good and tell people you are good. You’ve stuck to the whole of the law for your whole life? That’s wonderful. And how’s the humility coming along?
But those kinds of reading go against the plain meaning of the words. A few years ago, John the Baptist stood somewhere near here and told people that they needed to turn their lives around and clean themselves up so the Lord’s road would be ready for him when he arrived. Well here is a man whose life is just about as turned around as anyone’s could be; and the Lord is literally walking down the road. The Pharisees once asked why Jesus spent so much time with bad people; and Jesus said for the same reason that a doctor spends so much time with sick people. Here is a man who quite definitely doesn’t need a physician. If this guy can’t get into the kingdom of heaven, no-one can.
And that’s the moral of the story, apparently. No-one can.
If you really want to live forever, says Jesus, give away your money. All of it. Moral behaviour is neither here nor there. If you’re rich, you can’t come in.
The man goes away. The disciples look at Jesus, waiting for the spiritual explanation. They are expecting him to say that when he said possessions he didn’t really mean possessions, any more than when he talked about bread he really meant bread.
But there is no trick or parable or double meaning. When Jesus said that it’s very hard for rich people to get into heaven, that’s what he meant. And by “hard”, he doesn’t mean big-guy-going-through-a-small-doorway hard. He means elephant-going-through-a-keyhole hard
and they were astonished out of measure,
saying among themselves,
“who then can be saved?"
“who then can be saved?"
and Jesus looking upon them saith,
"with men it is impossible,
but not with God:
for with God all things are possible”
then Peter began to say unto him,
“lo, we have left all,
and have followed thee”
and Jesus answered and said,
“verily I say unto you,
there is no man that hath left
house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands,
for my sake, and the gospel's,
but he shall receive an hundredfold
now in this time
houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions;
and in the world to come eternal life.
but many that are first shall be last
and the last first”
It is impossible for rich people to go to heaven. So if they can’t, who can? Again, the disciples are probably expecting Jesus to say “poor people, obviously”. But Jesus says “No-one. It is impossible.” So there is no hope: apart from one thing. God is quite capable of doing the impossible. He can thread camels through needle’s eyes if he so chooses.
We all know about the nasty “prosperity” theologians who say that believing in God will make you rich. And we all like to throw the story of the rich man in their faces. Jesus was either a communist or an ascetic, or both. Either he wanted the rich man to sell all his possessions because the poor needed them more than he did; or else he thought that possessions were bad for the soul.
But then Jesus goes and talks to the disciples. And what he tells them seems to be very much on the prosperity theologians side. If you give your stuff away, you’ll get even more stuff back. Like Job. Bad things may happen if you follow Jesus — people may hate you. But good things will happen as well.
C.S. Lewis thought this was an example of Jesus cracking a joke — using humour to make a serious point. “Come and follow me and you can have it all: happy families, fast cars, hot showers, steak on the barbecue, persecution….”
“But Andrew…Jesus was talking in a spiritual sense. He meant that the spiritual rewards of following him in abject poverty will make you much happier than the big house and the big car could possibly have done.”
If that is what he meant, then he expressed it in a very odd way. Why talk about “houses, land and family” if what you mean is “spiritual happiness”? And if we are entitled to say that he meant houses, lands and family only in a spiritual sense; why are we not permitted to say that he told the rich man to sell his possessions only in a spiritual sense?
This is not the first time that Jesus has given two apparently contradictory teachings in consecutive sentences. In my kingdom, everyone will be poor. In my kingdom, everyone will be rich. These two things are the same.

and they were in the way going up to Jerusalem;
and Jesus went before them:
and they were amazed;
and as they followed,
they were afraid
and he took again the twelve,
and began to tell them what things should happen unto him,
saying
“behold, we go up to Jerusalem;
and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests,
and unto the scribes;
and they shall condemn him to death
and shall deliver him to the Gentiles:
and they shall mock him
and shall scourge him
and shall spit upon him,
and shall kill him:
and the third day he shall rise again”
and James and John, the sons of Zebedee,
come unto him, saying,
“master, we would that thou shouldest do for us
whatsoever we shall desire”
and he said unto them
“what would ye that I should do for you?”
they said unto him,
“grant unto us that we may sit,
one on thy right hand,
and the other on thy left hand,
in thy glory”
but Jesus said unto them,
“ye know not what ye ask:
can ye drink of the cup that I drink of?
and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?"
and they said unto him
“we can”
and Jesus said unto them,
“ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of;
and with the baptism that I am baptized withal
shall ye be baptized:
but to sit on my right hand and on my left hand is not mine to give;
but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared.”
and when the ten heard it, they began to be much displeased with James and John.
but Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them,
“ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles
exercise lordship over them;
and their great ones exercise authority upon them.
but so shall it not be among you:
but whosoever will be great among you,
shall be your minister:
and whosoever of you will be the chiefest,
shall be servant of all.
for even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto,
but to minister,
and to give his life a ransom for many”
The York Mystery Play was a great pageant, depicting the history of the world from creation to apocalypse in a single day. The final play, staged at great expense by the Merchants Guild, depicted the Last Judgement: actors representing angels and demons welcome the saved into heaven and the damned into hell. Jesus is enthroned in glory at the centre of the stage; to his right sits Mary, newly crowned Queen of Heaven; on his left sits Peter, holder of the keys of heaven and the power of binding and loosing.
Jesus says that James and John are not going to have the best seats in heaven: the medieval playwright decided that they would go to his chief disciple and his mother. If he had thought to invite the apostle to the Gentiles they could have formed a folk band.
But the York Merchants' play misses the point on a cosmic scale.
When Jesus chose the Twelve disciples, he singled out James and John and nicknamed them the Thunder-Brothers. Along with Peter, they form an inner circle within the Twelve. The Three went up the mountain to see the metamorphosis of Jesus; they witnessed the resurrection of Jairus’s daughter. But this is the only time they get a scene to themselves.
There has clearly been some jockeying for position going on. Before they left Galilee there was an argument about who the most important disciple was. Now James and John are lobbying for the top jobs. Maybe there is already a faction who think Peter should be boss and a faction who think the brothers should be boss?
Jesus has left Perea and started to walk towards Jerusalem. The mood in the band is one of amazement and terror. Jesus is walking into his enemies’ centre of power. I think it is probably over-subtle to say that the ones in the front were surprised and the ones at the back were scared. Everyone was probably feeling mixed emotions. You join the army knowing that sooner or later you are going to see front line combat; but that doesn’t mean that being told that you are going over the top first thing tomorrow doesn’t concentrate your mind.
Jesus doesn’t do much to steady their nerves. He has now foreseen his death three times. Each time he is more specific about it. In Galilee he said that the Son of Man was going to be handed over; now he says that he is going to be handed over to the Jewish leaders; and that they in turn are going to hand him over to the Romans; and its them who are going to beat him up and spit at him and kill him.
So how can James and John still be thinking in terms of glory? Perhaps they still don’t understand that Jesus is talking about himself. “Yes, very distressing for this Son of Man chap. But on a completely different matter, when you are king, we would like to volunteer to be your second and third in command?” Or have they understood him a bit to easily? “So there is nothing to worry about. You are going to die and rise from the dead. When that happens can we have the best seats?”
Jesus says (surprisingly) that he can’t promise this because it isn’t his decision. And the he starts talking about the whole idea of greatness. If you want to be big, you need to be a servant. If you want to be the most important of all, you need to become everyone’s slave. (He makes that distinction: between diakanos, a servant, and doulas, a slave.)
He has said almost these exact same words before. When they were all arguing about greatness back in Galilee. If you want to be the first, you will have to be the last, he said. And he illustrated the point by picking up a child.
A lot of sentimental rubbish has been talked about the story of Jesus blessing the children. We are told that children own the kingdom of heaven because they are innocent or spontaneous or trusting. There was supposedly an order of monks who made playing tag and hide and seek part of their spiritual practice in order to be more child-like. But what Jesus must really be talking about is status. Children are important because they are unimportant. Rich, holy people wont even get through the door. The most impressive seats in the kingdom will go to the ones who wait at table and sweep up after the party.
And that is the final piece of the puzzle. What everything has been building up to. Kids are the real grown-ups. The poor are the real rich. The slaves are at the top of the pecking order. The last are literally first and the first are literally last.
Jesus doesn’t exclude himself from this. If anything, he's mostly talking about himself. He is going to be beaten up and spat on and tortured. Status doesn't get any lower than that. James and John don’t yet understand what Jesus takes “glory” to mean.
I'm Andrew. I like God, Doctor Who, Star Wars, Wagner, folk-music and Spider-Man, not necessarily in that order. I have no political opinions of any kind.
Read my arts/virus diary.
I'm Andrew. I like God, Doctor Who, Star Wars, Wagner, folk-music and Spider-Man, not necessarily in that order. I have no political opinions of any kind.Read my arts/virus diary.
If you are enjoying my essays, please consider supporting me on Patreon (by pledging $1 for each essay)


And also (not my idea - stolen from a homily I heard once) when he is crucified, he will have one on his right and one on his left.
ReplyDeleteThat is obviously a different conclusion, but I think both interpretations are compatible.
ReplyDeleteSPOILERS! :)
ReplyDeleteI'm slowly re-reading the whole fascinating series. As I got to this post, I noticed something I'd missed before: "The guy who runs after Jesus is definitely rich; but there is no reason to think that he is either young or a ruler."
ReplyDeleteWell, there is. Matthew tells us he was young ("When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth", Matthew 19:22) and Luke tells us he was a ruler ("A certain ruler asked him, Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?", Luke 18:18). Given all the details in common it seems very clear these are three accounts of the same incident.
I could have been clearer here. I am trying throughout to take Mark at face value; and my point is that the only thing that Mark tells us about the one who came running is that he is rich.
DeleteIn these essays I was taking it more or less for granted that Mark was the oldest Gospel, and that Matthew and Luke used him as sources. Certainly, when Matthew tells the story he adds the fact that the questioner was young, and Luke adds the fact that he was a ruler, and we have conflated the stories.
My assumption, for the purposes of the articles anyway, was that Matthew the story teller invented the detail about the questioner's youth; and that Luke made up the detail about him being a ruler. This allows us to ask "Why did Matthew invent that particular detail? Is there a religious point being made, or was he just a story teller filling in the gaps to make it more vivid?"
It is possible, depending on how you date the gospels, that all three are preserving memories or oral traditions about the original incident. But the question you are left with is similar: "everyone knows" that the man was rich, young, and a ruler: but Matthew choses not to mention that he was a ruler, and Luke choose not to mention that he was young, and Mark thinks that all that matters is that he was rich.
"I could have been clearer here. I am trying throughout to take Mark at face value; and my point is that the only thing that Mark tells us about the one who came running is that he is rich."
DeleteYeah, I get that, and it's a good point; it's just not what the post actually says. Still, that's not to detract from the fascinating and valuable thing you're doing here. I hope one day you'll take a run at John.
"In these essays I was taking it more or less for granted that Mark was the oldest Gospel, and that Matthew and Luke used him as sources. Certainly, when Matthew tells the story he adds the fact that the questioner was young, and Luke adds the fact that he was a ruler, and we have conflated the stories."
Well, hang on, though. Granted that Mark is the oldest of the three and a source for Matthew and Luke, surely no-one's ever argued that Mark is the source for the other two, and they've made the rest of their gospels up? Surely it's much more likely that Matthew, reading Mark's gospel, "Oh yes, I remember that, I remember thinking how young he was"?
The normal argument is that Matthew is a redaction of three literary sources -- Mark, "Q" (the hypothetical anthology of Jesus' sayings and preaching) and a "Special Matthew" source (containing material unique to his gospel.) The most common position is that Luke redacted Mark and Q independently of Matthew. I don't think any scholar thinks that "Matthew" is a direct eye witness, or that he is modifying Mark based on things he independently witnessed.
DeleteAbsolutely, when Matthew repeats a story from Mark in nearly identical words, but makes one or two changes, the majority view is that Matthew is choosing to tell the story differently, for theological reasons.
I'm not an expert at all on textual criticism, but my sense has been that there is no real consensus about much of this, and for example there are a lot of respectable scholars who don't believe that Q existed. I think that "Matthew is choosing to tell the story differently, for theological reasons" is a very big claim to make on the basis of strikingly little evidence.
DeleteAs a matter of fact, Matthew repeats many of the exact same stories that appear in Mark, in almost the same words. The plausible explanations for this are that
ReplyDeletea: Matthew copied the stories from Mark
b: Mark copied the stories from Matthew
c: Matthew and Mark both copied the stories from a common source.
If they were independent accounts of the same event, they wouldn't be textually similar; and two independent eye-witnesses wouldn't have picked substantially the same thirty or forty incidents from a three year ministry.
Sometimes, the texts of what are quite clearly the same stories differ between the two Gospels. So again: either Mark consciously or unconsciously changed Matthew, or else Matthew consciously or unconsciously changed Mark. And if someone made changes, we are allowed to ask "Why? What does this change tell us about the writer's outlook?" (Matthew will often say "Kingdom of God" where Mark said "Kingdom of Heaven". That must tell us something, surely?)
We are Doctor Who fans: we can always come up with clever ways of reconciling contradictory texts. Some people have seriously argued that there were two Jairuses, or one Jairus with two daughters, or one Jairus with a single daughter who died twice. But Occam's razor suggests the most likely explanation is "One story teller preferred 'My daughter has died', the other preferred. 'My daughter is on the point of death.'"
Hence, the two claims I was making were
1: I think that Matthew differs from Mark, it is because Matthew knows Mark's text, and has changed it.
2: I think that these changes are meaningful and significant: he tells the story differently or subtly changes it because he wants to share the correct understanding of Jesus with his readers.
I don't know if all the changes are significant: I don't know if you could draw conclusions from the fact that Matthew said "young" and Luke said "ruler" and Mark just said "rich".But I think "Why did Matthew tell it that way?" is the question we should be asking, and "Because that was how it happened, because he was there" is rarely the right answer.
I would actually be quite interested in attempting a "Watsonian" interpretation, based on the traditional attributions. Peter, wearing his papal regalia, is telling Mark about Good Friday exactly has he remembers it, but thinks to himself "I'd better not mention the earthquake or the zombies, the poor chap would never believe it." But when the MS turns up on Matthew's doormat, he thinks "Oh, dear, what is Peter up to now, he's left out the zombies -- I'll have to fix that in the edit." I genuinely think that could be the basis for an edifying and informative piece of religious fan-fic. (But Luke cuts them out again. Because he didn't know the story, not having been there? Because he's a clever doctor and can't quite swallow it? Because he's not Jewish and doesn't know about Ezekiel and the dry bones?)
It's all very fascinating and thank you for raising it.
Correction: Mark who says "God" where Matthew says "Heaven".
DeleteAnd if we are being strict about this, the "matter of fact" is that Matthew and Mark have passages in common: to say "Matthew repeats..." is slightly question-begging.
ReplyDeleteYes, fascinating indeed. First, I agree that textual similarity rules out the possibility that Mark and Matther were working from independent accounts of the same events.
ReplyDeleteSecond, I think we can pretty comfortably agree that Matthew used material from Mark rather than the other way around. There's really no reason, if Mark had been working from a copy of Matthew, for him to have cut out so much material. I'm happy with the Mark Came First assumption. (A putative lost third document is a possibility, but let's not multiply entities without necessity.)
"Matthew consciously or unconsciously changed Mark. And if someone made changes, we are allowed to ask "Why? What does this change tell us about the writer's outlook?" (Matthew will often say "Kingdom of God" where Mark said "Kingdom of Heaven". That must tell us something, surely?)". That is interesting. My first working assumption is always that where there is a difference, that's Matthew enhancing Mark's account with his own recollections. But I admit that changing Kingdom of God to Kingdom of Heaven has a rather different feel to it. Also I'm not sure I understand what the difference would be between those two phrases. Surely the Kingdom of Heaven is the place where God's reign is unopposed, i.e. the Kingdom of God. Perhaps Matthew just preferred once phrasing over the other, as I prefer to omit the so-called Oxford comma which you may prefer to include it?
"Some people have seriously argued that there were two Jairuses, or one Jairus with two daughters, or one Jairus with a single daughter who died twice." I think we can agree not to bring such contortions into the discussion.
"I think "Why did Matthew tell it that way?" is the question we should be asking, and "Because that was how it happened, because he was there" is rarely the right answer." I agree on the questio, but don't share your assumption about the answer. On what grounds do you think this?
"I would actually be quite interested in attempting a "Watsonian" interpretation ..." That would be a fun game, but I don't think it would be be very enlightening.
"I genuinely think that could be the basis for an edifying and informative piece of religious fan-fic." Despite my previous comment, I would be keen to read that fanfic.
"(But Luke cuts them out again. Because he didn't know the story, not having been there? Because he's a clever doctor and can't quite swallow it? Because he's not Jewish and doesn't know about Ezekiel and the dry bones?)" Surely because his base document was a copy of Mark, not Luke? He didn't "cut them out", they just weren't in his source material.
I think the point of disagreement here is that I am more or less convinced by the liberal scholarly consensus that the synoptic writers were primarily story tellers: working from an already existing collection of stories and assembling them and reworking them into the books we now call "gospels". They were less interested in reporting "what actually happened" than in making sure the readers understood who Jesus was and why he was important. And where their understandings differ, they tell the stories differently.
ReplyDeleteI take it that you are more convinced by the traditional, conservative position that these are primarily historical accounts (reporting what actually happened, or intending to do so) written by, or on the basis of testimony from, people who were actually there.
>>>>(A putative lost third document is a possibility, but let's not multiply entities without necessity.)
This is Mark Goodacre's argument: that since no ancient source mentions Q and no MS has ever been found, it makes more sense to assume it didn't exist. But this means that Luke had to have known Matthew directly (to account for the overlap between the "sayings" material in the two texts). And that involves Luke in a kind of cut-and-paste exercise; taking sayings from Matthew and repositioning them elsewhere.
Goodacre argues his case very cleverly. If Luke knew Matthew, why on earth did he ignore Matthew's nativity story and come up with a completely different one? Answer: read Acts. Luke really didn't think much of magi!
>>> But I admit that changing Kingdom of God to Kingdom of Heaven has a rather different feel to it. Also I'm not sure I understand what the difference would be between those two phrases.
Possibly he was Jewish and didn't want to overuse the divine name? Possibly he thought that "Kingdom of God" sounded needlessly apocalyptic. Mark thought God was going to come and establish his kingdom on earth any day now (definitely while the first generation of disciples are still around). Matthew no longer believes that, and "Kingdom of Heaven" places it a bit more in the spiritual hereafter. But for the present discussion the point is that -- unless we are going to engage in Extreme Harmonisation (the historical Jesus really used both phrases, and it happens that Mark's notebook contained all the "God" examples and Matthew's all the "heaven" examples) -- either Matthew or Mark was prepared to make changes for stylistic or religious reasons. Or just by mistake.
>>>I think we can agree not to bring such contortions into the discussion.
Well agreed. But that does leave us with the fact that Mark and Luke have "my daughter is on the point of death" and Matthew has "my daughter has died". Does he want to emphasise the desperation of the situation, and Jairus' faith? Or is he unhappy with the implication that the girl died because Jesus delayed arriving to talk to the sick woman? Or did he just copy it down wrong?
>>>I agree on the question, but don't share your assumption about the answer. On what grounds do you think this?
ReplyDeleteWell, nothing in the text of Matthew's Gospel identifies itself as being by the disciple Matthew. (I think the argument is that the character who Mark and Luke refer to as Levi, Matthew refers to as "Matthew"?) I think we have manuscript and secondary sources giving the book that name in the 200s, which is of course, very, very ancient from our point of view, but still an awfully long time after it was written. If Mark is really based on the memories of Peter the disciple, and Matthew is really based on the account of Matthew the disciple, why do we see so few signs of those viewpoints? Peter, James and John were present at the healing of Jairus's daughter: Matthew wasn't. Wouldn't you expect some trace of "So the four of them go into the room, and we wait outside trying to comfort the mourners and suddenly there is a shout and someone says 'send some food in' and we realise..." So "what we call Matthew is written by an anonymous second generation Christian, familiar with Mark or with oral sources, to an audience of possibly recently converted Jewish Christians etc etc" makes more sense. And it's more interesting (and I think more respectful )to say that Mark tells one story; Matthew tells a slightly different story; let's try and understand what those two different stories mean rather than trying to pretend they are exactly the same story or amalgamating them into a third story. (I think I talk about this in my section on John the Baptist.)
>>>Despite my previous comment, I would be keen to read that fanfic.
I've done the fan-fic thing a couple of times when writing about other central texts in western civilisation. "Imaginatively reconstructing" how a story came to be written is a vivid way of describing what the story is actually like. Granted what I know of how Stan Lee and John Romita worked, and granted what I can see on the page, I can plausibly say "I think Lee looked at the artwork and said 'that's not quite consistent, I need to put something in the captions to explain it' and that's why the panel is such a funny shape." It's fan fic in the sense of being imaginative: not in the sense of being frivolous.
I am surprised that people who follow the traditional attributions aren't (so far as I know) interested in those kinds of questions. Neither Peter nor Mattew witnessed the crucifixion: ergo they based their accounts on hearsay. Are the discrepancies between Luke and Mark explicable, say by the fact that Peter heard the story from Mary Magdalene but Luke was talking to ordinary members of the public who had been in Jerusalem at the right time?
>>>Surely because his base document was a copy of Mark, not Luke? He didn't "cut them out", they just weren't in his source material.
Yes, that's what I think. I was envisaging a sequence of events where Q didn't exist and Luke worked from Matthew directly.
And thinking out loud, of course.
Sorry to be so slow in responding ...
ReplyDeleteI think the point of disagreement here is that I am more or less convinced by the liberal scholarly consensus that the synoptic writers were primarily story tellers: working from an already existing collection of stories and assembling them and reworking them into the books we now call "gospels". They were less interested in reporting "what actually happened" than in making sure the readers understood who Jesus was and why he was important.
Here is a different perspective:
“Another point is that on that view you would have to regard the accounts of the Man as being legends. Now, as a literary historian, I am perfectly convinced that whatever else the Gospels are they are not legends. I have read a great deal of legend and I am quite clear that they are not the same sort of thing. They are not artistic enough to be legends. From an imaginative point of view they are clumsy, they don’t work up to things properly. Most of the life of Jesus is totally unknown to us, as is the life of anyone else who lived at that time, and no people building up a legend would allow that to be so. Apart from bits of the Platonic dialogues, there are no conversations that I know of in ancient literature like the Fourth Gospel. There is nothing, even in modern literature, until about a hundred years ago when the realistic novel came into existence. In the story of the woman taken in adultery we are told Christ bent down and scribbled in the dust with His finger. Nothing comes of this. No one has ever based any doctrine on it. And the art of inventing little irrelevant details to make an imaginary scene more convincing is a purely modern art. Surely the only explanation of this passage is that the thing really happened? The author put it in simply because he had seen it.”
"Your holy hearsay is not evidence.
DeleteGive me the good news in the present tense.
What happened nineteen hundred years ago
May not have happened.
How am I to know?
So shut your Bibles up and show me how
The Christ you talk about
Is living now."
I don't the sentiment of this poem is wrong, but it's an odd point to make in a discussion about the textual history of the Gospels. Unless you're saying that the whole discussion is wrong-headed?
DeleteI should have said at the top something like "This is such a big and fascinating subject that it needs it's own article, but it does occur to me that one could use Sydney Carter to respond to Lewis..."
DeleteMy thought was that Lewis appeared to be saying that the Fourth Gospel was reportage (as close to the facts as Boswell was to Johnson!) or it was nothing; where Carter seems to be saying that if you actually believed the message of the Fourth Gospel, then the historical data is relatively unimportant.
Good poem. He should have tried his hand at writing hymns.
But, as I say: this is a big and difficult subject which needs its own essay. I am in fact writing some notes on Jairus's daughter as we speak. My commentary on "What Are We To Make Of Jesus Christ" will probably follow. I just reread it, and literally every line made me say "Yes...but?" And this is before we even consider the doctrinal and textual issues raised by the pericope adulterae.
Sample....
The English text says "Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground." "Scribbled" is Lewis's own gloss.
It is not true that no doctrine has ever been based on that incident. The most common versions are
a: Jesus wrote a list of the sins of those present.
b: The Ten Commandments were written by the finger of God. Jesus is identifying himself as the author of the law that the woman has broken; and is possibly indicating that the Torah is temporary -- written in sand, not in stone.
The first theory allows us to say "Mary was released BECAUSE the judges and the execution party were all hypocrites: so in this particular case the law was nullified. Jesus is saying effectively 'I am going to let you off this time, because you accusers have all been bed-hopping from months, but make sure you stay out of trouble in future, because the law still stands'."
The second interpretation (which is much more consistent with the passage) is that 'there are no more laws -- no more secular judges or punishments -- because there are no sinless humans to administer them."
Jesus was sitting in Moses’ chair.
They brought the trembling woman there.
Moses commands she be ston’d to death.
What was the sound of Jesus’ breath?
He laid His hand on Moses’ law;
The ancient Heavens, in silent awe,
Writ with curses from pole to pole,
All away began to roll.
The Earth trembling and naked lay
In secret bed of mortal clay;
On Sinai felt the Hand Divine
Pulling back the bloody shrine;
And she heard the breath of God,
As she heard by Eden’s flood:
‘Good and Evil are no more!
Sinai’s trumpets cease to roar!
Cease, finger of God, to write!
The Heavens are not clean in Thy sight.
Thou art good, and Thou alone;
Nor may the sinner cast one stone.
Also, this gave me pause:
ReplyDelete"But that does leave us with the fact that Mark and Luke have "my daughter is on the point of death" and Matthew has "my daughter has died". Does he want to emphasise the desperation of the situation, and Jairus' faith? Or is he unhappy with the implication that the girl died because Jesus delayed arriving to talk to the sick woman? Or did he just copy it down wrong?"
But on re-reading, I see that the girl is definitively dead in all three accounts: the difference is that in Matthew Jairus comes to Jesus and says she is dead; but in the other two he tells Jesus she is dying, and while they are on the way to his house they meet servants who say she has died. In which case it's easy to imagine that Matthew (or his source) didn't quite remember all the details; or that he edited out what he thought an irrelevant detail to bring out the structure of the story.
You are right that nothing in the text of Matthew identifies the author — unlike, for example, many of the OT prophets.
"It's more interesting (and I think more respectful )to say that Mark tells one story; Matthew tells a slightly different story; let's try and understand what those two different stories mean rather than trying to pretend they are exactly the same story."
Here we are in agreement.
"Neither Peter nor Matthew witnessed the crucifixion."
How do we know that?
DeleteBut you see, I don’t think Matthew brings out the structure of the story: I think he changes it beyond recognition.
Let’s put them side by side.
Mark: And, behold, there cometh one of the rulers of the synagogue, Jairus by name; and when he saw him, he fell at his feet, and besought him greatly, saying, “My little daughter liveth at the point of death: I pray thee, come and lay thy hands on her, that she may be healed; and she shall live.”
Matthew: Behold, there came a certain ruler, and worshipped him, saying, “My daughter is even now dead: but come and lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live.”
Matthew seems to be following Mark, omitting the “that she may be healed” part and changing “at the point of death” to “even now dead.” And that makes rather a big difference. “She is sick, but I want you to lay hands on her, so she will get better, and survive” is not a trivial mis-remembering of “She has just died, but I want you to lay hands on her, so she will come back to life.”
Everyone believes that Jesus is a healer. Matthew places the story after the story of the healing of the paralytic. People who are not particularly disciples — lepers, romans, blind men — keep asking Jesus for healing. The question is not “can he” heal the young girl, but “will he”. Note that in Mark, the people from Jairus’ house believe that Jesus could have healed the girl if he had been there. (Which reminds one of Martha in the Fourth Gospel: if only Jesus had come more quickly, Lazarus would not have died.)
So in Mark Jesus is on an urgent mission of mercy — and is delayed by the crowds. And when he is touched by the sick woman, instead of pressing on, he delays further and talks to her. (In Mark the woman is healed when she touches Jesus’ clothes. In Matthew, she is healed when Jesus pronounces her healed. Possibly Matthew was uncomfortable with the idea of “involuntary” miracles?)
After all the delay, people from Jairus’s house arrive and say that it is too late, and that there is now no point in Jesus coming. But Jesus says privately to Jairus that he should still have faith.
Matthew has removed the idea of urgency, and delay. It is now longer the case that Jesus delays helping the daughter of an important, religious man to help a low-status woman whose condition means she can’t even go inside a synagogue. (What does Jairus think when he hears Jesus refer to the sick woman as “daughter”?) All that narrative tension and escalation is removed because the girl is already dead. It makes no difference how long Jesus takes to get there. (He healed Lazarus after the body had started to decay.)
Your suggestion is that the girl actually died after Jairus set out, but before he spoke to Jesus, so that when he says “My daughter is very ill” she has in fact, unbeknownst to him, already died? In fact, you are proposing a third version of events, slightly different to the canonical two:
According to Mark: The girl is very sick.
According to Matthew: The girl has died
According to Mike: Jairus thinks the girl is alive, but actually, she has died.
If you are trying to “save the appearances” — to come up with a Thing Which Really Happened, which doesn’t require us to say that either Mark or Matthew consciously changed the story — this is of some help. But it remains, I think, true that if we read Mark in the light of Matthew, or in the light of Mike’s Harmonisation, we are reading a different story.
Text “My little daughter is on the point of death” .
Commentator “Ah, but we know she’s already died, don’t we.”
Incidentally: there is another, quite popular way of harmonising the versions, which does not require Jairus to be mistaken, let alone there to be two Jairus’s, two daughters, or two resurrections. There only need be two requests. You splice the versions together thus:
DeleteAnd, behold, there cometh one of the rulers of the synagogue, Jairus by name; and when he saw him, he fell at his feet, and besought him greatly, saying, “My little daughter lieth at the point of death: I pray thee, come and lay thy hands on her, that she may be healed”; and she shall live. And Jesus went with him; and much people followed him, and thronged him.
And, behold, a woman, which was diseased with an issue of blood twelve years, came behind him, and touched the hem of his garment….
While he yet spake, there came from the ruler of the synagogue’s house certain which said, “Thy daughter is dead: why troublest thou the Master any further?”
As soon as Jesus heard the word that was spoken, he saith unto the ruler of the synagogue, “Be not afraid, only believe”.
(Jairus) worshipped him, saying (again) “My daughter is even now dead: but come and lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live.” And Jesus arose, and followed him, and so did his disciples.
But I can’t say I’m convinced….
How do we know that?
DeleteI honestly don't know if you are asking for information or making a rhetorical point here. (Either would be an okay thing to do.) Matthew and Mark say that the disciples all ran away after the arrest of Jesus; and Peter ran away after disowning him. Luke, admittedly, says that everyone who knew Jesus was watching from a distance, but still gives all his attention to the female disciples. John (only) says that the Beloved Disciple was present.
But perhaps your point is "You say that the authors / sources of first and second Gospels were not present at the crucifixion, and that we should therefore be skeptical about the historicity of their account. But your only grounds for saying that they were not present is the testimony of the second Gospel, which surely involves a contradiction." I would have to concede that point. Although I might claim that i was talking about internal consistency of texts. I can say "Jim Hawkins promised that he wouldn't report John Silver's crimes, but he went ahead and published Treasure Island" without committing myself as to whether Jim Hawkins or John Silver were real people.
Thank you for engaging in such depth. I feel really bad that I just don't have the time to do likewise. I'll only be able to reply to your thoughtful comments briefly, and then probably let this conversation drop. It would be so much more fun to do it over a pint or two.
ReplyDeleteI am glad you're writing more on this and adjacent subjects. I know the audience for this stuff isn't as big as for Spider-Man, but I find it fascinating.
You say "It is not true that no doctrine has ever been based on that incident". I think it is true. The two ideas you give are only speculations, not doctrines.
"‘Good and Evil are no more!" is a heck of a statement for the poet to put in Jesus's mouth. Especially in light of his telling the woman "Go and sin no more".
I think that to say Matthew "changes the story beyond recognition" is a much stronger claim than the texts merit. Again, the point is that in every version, the girl is definitely dead by the time they get to her. It wasn't my intention to posit a different version of events to what's in the various gospels: I'm not playing a textual game of Make It All Fit. I'm just seeing the discrepancies as the kinds of things that might will slip the mind after a few decades. I think our point of disagreement may be that you think Matthew consciously changed the story whereas I think it's more likely he just remembered it differently.
("Which reminds one of Martha in the Fourth Gospel: if only Jesus had come more quickly, Lazarus would not have died." Martha is mistaken, though: Jesus delays for only two days, but when he arrives at Bethany Lazarus has already been dead for four days.)
I agree that the suggested harmonization of the Jairus story feels more like an attempt to reconcile parts of the Doctor Who canon than it does like actual Biblical analysis or scholarship.
I was being literal in asking how we know that neither Peter nor Matthew witnessed the crucifixion. I suppose the textual evidence on this is equivocal, but it's hard to imagine that the disciples would not at least have been in the vicinity as Luke 23:49 suggests. Your clever internal-contradiction argument hadn't occurred to me, but I don't think it would get us far anyway in terms of what kind of documents we think the Gospels are.
1: Yes, I had completely misread the chronology of the Lazarus story....
Delete2: It depends what you mean by doctrine. If you mean credal statement or dogma, then no doctrine has ever been based on that incident. No doctrines have ever been based on most of the New Testament. If by doctrine you mean "teaching" ("didache" "they were astonished at is doctrine") then yes, teachings have been derived from the story.
3: William Blake was, obviously, as batty as fruit cake. But surely he has a valid point about the interpretation -- the application -- of the adulteress story?
Good and evil are no more is an over-statement. But most of the alternatives seem like gross under-statements. Is the point of the passage that capital sentences are inappropriate for purely moral offences? Or that it was unjust for the woman alone to be punished, when she was presumably caught in the "very act" with another person? Or are supposed to think of Jesus as a little like Mr Chips or Prof Dumbledore? "Well, school rules say I ought to wallop you, but it's a lovely day and my horse just came in at Newmarket, so be off with you, but remember, smoking is still against the rules?"
It seems to me that Blake is right to the extent that, if only the sinless can punish the sinful, and everyone is sinful, then there can be no courts and no punishments. And Jesus, who on that basis has a perfect right to be a judge, declines to be one as well. Which may not be the same as saying "no good and evil" but is very close to saying "no laws". Which may be why some people seemingly tried to excise the text from the Gospel.
4: And that's really my main question. I think you concur with Lewis that the incident of the writing in the dust is purely factual: a corroborative detail of no further significance. Which is quite a big thing to say about John's Gospel in particular: he records actions and events about the incarnate logos which have no deeper symbolic or spiritual meaning? But if the writing incident is of no doctrinal significance, why should we say that the story as a whole has that kind of meaning? Perhaps John wasn't telling us about judges or adultery or forgiveness, but merely recording there was that one time when Jesus confounded a group of lawyers? The insistence on "this is what happened" risk emptying the text of its spiritual and exegetical function.
One final point.
DeleteYou seem okay with the idea that the synoptic gospels are interdependent -- that if three texts tell a very similar story in very similar words, they are either copying each other, or mutually copying a fourth source?
But you envisage Matthew amending Mark to bring it line to what he, an eye-witness remembered; or to bring it in line with an intermediate, eye-witness source.
But Matthew who (according to this theory) was actually there, doesn't tell the story in his own words, based on his own observations. ("The first I knew was when Peter called out "We're going to visit Jairus! Clear a path"). And he doesn't directly correct the other person. ("Young Mark says the Jairus didn't know his daughter was dead. Well, I was there, and let me tell you, he arrived in floods of tears, begging Jesus etc etc')
Sometimes, a popular ballad (or in modern times, a TV show) may become popular while there is still a living memory of the original events. So, for example, Bob Ford knew that his eye witness account had no chance of supplanting the Ballad of Jesse James in the popular memory, but did try to change lines in the song which were blatantly false. (He didn't have three kids, he had two.) You can imagine a survivor of the Titanic trying to fix details of When That Great Ship Went Down, knowing full well that their own song, let only their own factual account, is never going to become the default account of the story.
Is that the sort of thing you are imagining in this case? That, say, fifty years after the event, the key events of Jesus life were fixed in the form of particular stories; and that all Matthew can do is make small 'tweaks' to those stories to make them consistent with what he remembers. (And that "consistent with what he remembers" was always his aim, never "consistent with the Church's post-resurrection understanding of Jesus?)