(Not) Waiting for Allah

The strange thing about the people who are being called Islamic State, and all similar Christian, Jewish, Hindu or whatever fanatics is their lack of faith in their god. Clearly Allah could, if it existed as they imagine it, wipe Paris from the face of the Earth before breakfast, and certainly wouldn't have to wait 2000 years to knock down an old deserted temple somewhere.

Fanatics are just a type of theology student gone bad (or at least, worse): they know what their god wants done but they just can't quite trust "god" to get the job done in its own; they have to hurry the plan up. Which is fair enough in some ways, since no god has done in fact ever done anything anywhere in the whole of history or beyond. The reality is that gods are just puppets being moved by the strings of their worshippers.

God didn't knock that glass of water over, you did.

So don't pray for Paris. Never pray. Never grovel in the dirt to some misbegotten fantasy character in some crummy old book that promises justice or revenge or peace. Paris will do just fine without the paper help of paper gods.

An Indian Upon God

I passed along the water's edge below the humid trees,
My spirit rocked in evening light, the rushes round my knees,
My spirit rocked in sleep and sighs; and saw the moorfowl pace
All dripping on a grassy slope, and saw them cease to chase
Each other round in circles, and heard the eldest speak:
Who holds the world between His bill and made us strong or weak
Is an undying moorfowl, and He lives beyond the sky.
The rains are from His dripping wing, the moonbeams from His eye.
I passed a little further on and heard a lotus talk:
Who made the world and ruleth it, He hangeth on a stalk,
For I am in His image made, and all this tinkling tide
Is but a sliding drop of rain between His petals wide.
A little way within the gloom a roebuck raised his eyes
Brimful of starlight, and he said: The Stamper of the Skies,
He is a gentle roebuck; for how else, I pray, could He
Conceive a thing so sad and soft, a gentle thing like me?
I passed a little further on and heard a peacock say:
Who made the grass and made the worms and made my feathers gay,
He is a monstrous peacock, and He waveth all the night
His languid tail above us, lit with myriad spots of light.

W. B. Yeats 

Stop Press: No One Wins Nobel Economics Prize

Yet again, press reports that someone has won the Nobel prize for economics are misguided. There is no such prize. There is a prize given by a bunch of bankers which, in typically dishonest banking style, they named after Nobel despite it having no connection with the fund that he set up to reward actual scientific progress.

This prize is handed out every year to which ever political economist (to give the field it's full name) has managed to publish work which most defends the status quo of the banking world. This is generally done by choosing a political stance and then finding a mathematical model which, by dint of ignoring everything that doesn't neatly fit, seems to give a "scientific" reason for why the real economy must actually work that way, thereby giving support to unelected advisers to dim-witted politicians who want the world to be run that way (and by a sheer coincidence, line their own pockets).

This years arsehole is a bloke called Angus Deaton who has been lauded for saying what the rich always like to hear: success is down to hard work and you don't want to stop people from working hard, now do you?

Of course, success is largely down to luck. The world is full of people working so hard that it kills them and who die in poverty. Birth (starting with the big one: country of birth) is by far the biggest element in success, followed by the ability to eject all morality as soon as it becomes inconvenient. Unlimited greed helps too. Basically, everything the Tory party (whether as part of the Conservatives or Labour) stands for. Angus acknowledges that he himself was lucky (more specifically, that his father was) but is careful not to say that this luck is more important than his presumably amazingly hard work sitting at a desk and thinking about stuff that he will never have to prove or even really defend in any serious (ie, job-threatening) way.

Angus has never been poor in his entire life but he's happy to tell us why other people are poor and how we can fix that - mainly by making money for ourselves and sharing the crumbs. No wonder the banks thought he should get a prize.

Pictures or it didn't happen

Apparently dead children only exist if someone photographs them and shares it on Facebook and Twitter. Foolishly, I though that all the children that had died as a result of the Syrian crisis were equally tragic. I'm just old fashioned that way, I guess.

Chapter 11: Devil Take the Hindmost

So, let's talk about John the Baptist again, shall we? It's been, oh, pages since we last did.

When I started on this read-through of the so-called Gospel of Luke, I was not expecting this sort of thing. I knew that, at best, Jesus was a composite figure who might be partly based on a real person but was probably mostly myth, fiction, and post-facto rationalisations of OT predictions that had to be made to come true. I didn't expect to find so much blatant admission that Jesus's story was based on another specific person.

This chapter opens with C trying to explain why Jesus's followers use a prayer similar to that which other Christians - non-Jesus following Christians - apparently already associated with John the Baptist.

Chapter 11

And it came to pass, that, as he was praying in a certain place, when he ceased, one of his disciples said unto him, Lord, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples. 

And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.
Give us day by day our daily bread.

And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.

This sort of thing is almost enough to make me give up on the whole account. What is there about Jesus that actually marks him out as distinct from John? Even being resurrected isn't unique to one or other of them, at least in the view of some of C's contemporaries. They have the same background, the same outlook, the same sort of "party structure" and teaching methods, even the same extended family. Yet we're told in all the Gospels that the stories about John pre-date those about Jesus. Why should we even bother continuing to read about this Jesus bloke; when clearly the person we should be investigating is John and whether he existed or not? Oh well. Onwards we plod.

And he said unto them, Which of you shall have a friend, and shall go unto him at midnight, and say unto him, Friend, lend me three loaves;

For a friend of mine in his journey is come to me, and I have nothing to set before him?
And he from within shall answer and say, Trouble me not: the door is now shut, and my children are with me in bed; I cannot rise and give thee. 

I say unto you, Though he will not rise and give him, because he is his friend, yet because of his importunity he will rise and give him as many as he needeth. 

And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. 

For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

Sounds nice. There is an underlying question, though, of what actually counts as seeking something. We've been told by C's Jesus that one can get to the Kingdom of Heaven by virtue of faith, or love, and now by simply knocking on the door (which implies faith, certainly, but also something more). As a specific example, what is Jesus saying happens to children who die young? They can't be admitted automatically, as that would have to apply equally to, say, Jews who have never heard of Jesus - which is most of them at this point. So do they have to "seek" something beyond having faith in the god that their parents told them about? It's a question that Christians never really managed to answer and instead resort to classifying it as invalid in various ways.

The issue of asking continues into the next part:

If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?

I think the answer there, Jesus, is going to be "no". Not unless the father has Alzheimer's or something. 

Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?

I'm not sure I'd trust anyone that even managed to think of that.

If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

The word translated as "evil" here is πονηροι - poneros. This is actually quite a difficult word to translate and a slightly better attempt, I think, would be "If ye then, being mired in evil, know..." with a hint of "tainted" about it too. The evil here is something imposed on the listener as an inescapable part of living in a world which is ruled, as previously mentioned, by Satan and all his little devil helpers. So it's a little more generous to the listener than it seems at first reading, as well as being another part of C's whole picture of a mundane world which is ripe for being cleaned out in some sort of apocalyptic act. Because everything in it is touched by this evil. For example:

And he was casting out a devil, and it was dumb. And it came to pass, when the devil was gone out, the dumb spake; and the people wondered.

But some of them said, He casteth out devils through Beelzebub the chief of the devils.
And others, tempting him, sought of him a sign from heaven.

But he, knowing their thoughts, said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and a house divided against a house falleth. 

If Satan also be divided against himself, how shall his kingdom stand? because ye say that I cast out devils through Beelzebub. 

And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your sons cast them out? therefore shall they be your judges.

Again, C can not avoid the issue that he's not really claiming anything new for this Jesus character. Other people are casting devils out too and he doesn't say that they're doing anything wrong. So casting out devils is not in itself a sign of being the messiah, apparently. In fact, as we know today only too well, it's big business and must have been even moreso in the days before TV and The Amazing Randi to expose the fraudsters who practise this sort of deception.

But if I with the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you. 

When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace: 

But when a stronger than he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he taketh from him all his armour wherein he trusted, and divideth his spoils.

He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathereth not with me scattereth.

When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest; and finding none, he saith, I will return unto my house whence I came out.

And when he cometh, he findeth it swept and garnished.

Then goeth he, and taketh to him seven other spirits more wicked than himself; and they enter in, and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first.

I've struggled with this bit of text. It seems to be saying that casting devils out is pointless as all you're doing is making a clean home for them to come back to with their mates. Of course, the only reason I'm struggling with it is because I'm trying to make it fit with everything else. But, really, the language is quite clear - the palace or house is a possessed person. The strong man is a devil who is thrown out by the faith-healer but after wandering around a while, the devil returns with a gang of others and re-inhabits the nicely cleaned house.

Chucked into the middle of it is the line "He that is not with me is against me" which has caused a lot of trouble, and can go on the pile along with "he that is not against is is for us" back in chapter 9 as just one more contradiction.

Anyway, the interpretations I've read that try to fit this passage into some coherent frame are unconvincing and my view is that it's actually another statement about the approaching end of the world; if it doesn't come soon all Jesus's work will be undone. And, looking at Syria today you could argue that he had a point.

And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked.

But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.

Jesus just can't stand anyone saying anything nice about Mary, can he?

And when the people were gathered thick together, he began to say, This is an evil generation: they seek a sign; and there shall no sign be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet.

For as Jonas was a sign unto the Ninevites, so shall also the Son of man be to this generation.

The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with the men of this generation, and condemn them: for she came from the utmost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here.

Queen of the South are currently trailing Rangers on goal difference. Just sayin'. 

The men of Nineve shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.

None of these last few verses sound like anything anyone other than an egomaniac would say, do they? They sound a lot like something someone talking about someone else would say. Someone who's a bit careless in drawing parallels with Jonas who, after all, didn't bring the world to an end.

No man, when he hath lighted a candle, putteth it in a secret place, neither under a bushel, but on a candlestick, that they which come in may see the light.

Bit more ego.

The light of the body is the eye: therefore when thine eye is single, thy whole body also is full of light; but when thine eye is evil, thy body also is full of darkness.

Take heed therefore that the light which is in thee be not darkness. 

This is drivel.

If thy whole body therefore be full of light, having no part dark, the whole shall be full of light, as when the bright shining of a candle doth give thee light.

And as he spake, a certain Pharisee besought him to dine with him: and he went in, and sat down to meat.

Yes, because the Pharisees liked nothing more than to dine with people who constantly criticised them.

And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not first washed before dinner.

And the Lord said unto him, Now do ye Pharisees make clean the outside of the cup and the platter; but your inward part is full of ravening and wickedness.

"I just thought maybe you'd want to wash your hands since we don't use cutlery."

Ye fools, did not he that made that which is without make that which is within also?

"Yes, but you've been out and about all day and your hands are bound to have some dirt on them. It's not sanitary."

But rather give alms of such things as ye have; and, behold, all things are clean unto you.

"I honestly don't think you can 'cast out' dirt, Jesus. I mean, just some water won't hurt, will it? We can drop some mint in it and then your hands will smell nice too."

But woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye tithe mint and rue and all manner of herbs, and pass over judgment and the love of God: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

"Look, all I said was, 'would you like to wash your hands first?'"

Woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye love the uppermost seats in the synagogues, and greetings in the markets.

"Okay. Shall we just tuck in, then? Eh? What do you say, Jesus? I'd love to debate this, honestly, but the wife's gone to a lot of trouble, really."

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are as graves which appear not, and the men that walk over them are not aware of them.

"Oh, bloody hell."

Then answered one of the lawyers, and said unto him, Master, thus saying thou reproachest us also.

"Shit! Don't say that!" *frantically kicks lawyer under the table*

And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers.

Woe unto you! for ye build the sepulchres of the prophets, and your fathers killed them.

Truly ye bear witness that ye allow the deeds of your fathers: for they indeed killed them, and ye build their sepulchres. 

Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute: 

That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; 

From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.

"Okay, well, I see your point. More wine?"

Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.

"Oh, for fu..."

And as he said these things unto them, the scribes and the Pharisees began to urge him vehemently, and to provoke him to speak of many things:

Laying wait for him, and seeking to catch something out of his mouth, that they might accuse him.

The point of Jesus's ranting here is to set up the crucifixion later. The Pharisees are accused of having a habit of simply killing all Jehovah's prophets (which isn't true on several levels) and that that makes the Pharisees living today guilty (which is unfair and unjust) and implies that they will crucify Jesus too (which, in the end, they don't). Even within the context of the book itself, this is complete bollocks and nothing more than a thin attempt to rope in OT stories as "evidence" that Jesus was the Ultimate Prophet. The stories in question actually have no connection to this load of badly written hogwash.

Additionally, the whole setting here is anachronistic and unbelievable - the Pharisees would have been natural allies, not enemies, at that time, and who would sit through this sort of ranting from a dinner guest. Plus, the story ends with the note that this marked the start of the Pharisees's attempts to trap Jesus, which contradicts not only previous mentions of the same thing, but the underlying assumption of this very scene which is that Jesus already hates the Pharisees and, having already dined with them, they are bound to be aware of that.

Never invite Jesus around for tea. That's my tip.

Long hiatus here, but I will be back to finish this.

Chapter 10: Jesus Conquers the World (but no one notices)

In chapter 10 the narrative spins off into a parallel universe where teams of unnamed apostles spread out and command demons and/or devils and are immune to the venom of scorpions and snakes. Needless to say, many later would-be apostles have died as a result of this chapter, although some canny ones have managed to take the advice slightly less literally and gradually built up immunity to snake bites by "carefully" exposing themselves over time to larger doses. They're still nutters, but they're not stupid nutters!

By now the 1st century Jewish world-view should be fairly apparent. Lacking any real scientific understanding (unlike their Greek neighbours), the Jews had invented a cosmology where the world was in a state of total domination by Satan, from whom all diseases originated via intermediary spirits (devils). This layer of misery is heaped on top of an older view that saw plain misfortune as something that Jehovah sent to those he was displeased with, such as Saul who's visit to the Witch of Endor resulted in him being told off by Samuel. The book of Job expresses the belief that Satan only acted at the direction of Jehovah and that he, Satan, could be sympathetic to his victims (which, in fact, the serpent of Eden was too).

The problem with this model is that it fails to explain why bad things happen to innocent people such as children in any convincing way - something that Christianity has never managed to explain to the satisfaction of anything more mentally developed than a mollusc. So what passed for philosophy among the Jews of the post-exile period developed a new model.

The newer view seems to have been that at some point Jehovah turned his back on people and the world he had created. Why is unclear, what with being omniscient and making that promise to Noah and all. Into the resulting power vacuum stepped a new version of Satan who was far from sympathetic to the human race and operated not only his old regime of bad luck, but also gained the characteristics of a god of disease.

The story of Jesus that C is telling is one of overthrowing this earthly kingdom of pain by a man who preaches that, even after that revolution, the world is very much second prize compared to the Kingdom of God. Once again, the contradictions are palpable - if that's the case, why not just have a big old rapture now? What, actually, is the point of the pantomime execution and all the rest of it? Christian belief centres on this redemption but it's not all all clear what the moral basis is for even saying that most people needed it nor why the death of the Messiah would make any difference to the sins of people who never met him.

Well, on with the show:

Chapter 10

After these things the LORD appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come.

So there's 41 pairs of heralds (if the original 12 are included) and, by implication, 41 cities and places where Jesus is going to go. That's quite a lot for such a tiny area. It's odd that no one recorded his activities, really, when he must have gone to every seat of literature in the place where many people interested in the possibility of a messiah (friendly or not to the idea) would have lived and written. Not so odd if it never happened, of course.

Therefore said he unto them, The harvest truly is great, but the labourers are few: pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he would send forth labourers into his harvest.

Go your ways: behold, I send you forth as lambs among wolves.

Carry neither purse, nor scrip, nor shoes: and salute no man by the way.

And into whatsoever house ye enter, first say, Peace be to this house.

"Peace be to this house", or close variations of it, are still used by Gypsies today. Which is sort of nice, I think. There's worse things to say when you visit someone you don't know.

And if the son of peace be there, your peace shall rest upon it: if not, it shall turn to you again.

And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the labourer is worthy of his hire. Go not from house to house.

And into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you:

And heal the sick that are therein, and say unto them, The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.

But into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you not, go your ways out into the streets of the same, and say,

Even the very dust of your city, which cleaveth on us, we do wipe off against you: notwithstanding be ye sure of this, that the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.

This is a subtle reference to the story of Jeremiah and a previous destruction of Jerusalem. In that story, Jehovah granted that if he could find a single good man in the whole city, that Jehovah would spare it (famously, he could not). Logically, that is the situation here. If the apostles find a single house that accepts them and their message, they are to stop there and freeload for a while and then leave the "city"; there is no need to go from house to house. If they can't find anyone who will take them in, they are to leave the city to its fate. And what will that fate be? Total destruction, of course!

What a nice guy. The take away message is that whether a sinner lives or dies is not necessarily down to their own reaction to preaching but to the luck of the draw as to whether or not some Christians live nearby. Murderer A is slain because he lives with other murderers; murderer B survives because there's a single Christian living just inside the city gates. In the long run, of course, we're all dead so maybe it doesn't matter.

But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city.

Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works had been done in Tyre and Sidon, which have been done in you, they had a great while ago repented, sitting in sackcloth and ashes.

C's stitching together material again and once more fails to cover the joins. Bethsaida is so hopelessly mired in sin that even "mighty works" (i.e., miracles)  have not led to a single person converting to the cause. But in just the previous chapter, we were told that at least 5000 people came out of the city to listen to Jesus before they were miraculously fed with the loaves and fishes. Is C really suggesting that such interested people were actually turned off Jesus's message by his demonstration? Or has a completely different account, that has no successful miracle event at Bethsaida just been dropped in here? Hmmm.

But it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the judgment, than for you.

And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted to heaven, shalt be thrust down to hell.

This is just some distant person's list of well-known towns, really. There's no attempt to connect it with the earlier accounts of Jesus going into Capernaum where "I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel." (chapter 7). As folklore, this is typical. As supposedly great literature and biography it is worthless.

He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.

There's a break here. Jesus was addressing the cities but now he's addressing someone else. Possibly this verse should be moved down a couple so that he's talking to the returning horde of apostles.

And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name.

And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.

Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you.

Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven.

That's the only place they're written; we have only a handful of names who might be from this group. It's not clear if they are included under the heading of "disciples" or not from this point on; it seems unlikely but it is the case that the next portion of Jesus's supposed private conversation may or may not be addressed to 62 people:

In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.

What a mess. Jesus is saying that wise and prudent people have been deceived. Aside from being more "mystery cult" nonsense, it's just plain old-fashioned nonsense. If you've missed something this important how can you be wise? And what's Jehovah's motivation to hide it from them? Terrible, terrible crap writing. If anything shows "Jesus" to be a hollow mask covering juvenile wish-fulfilment, it's this section of "they think they're so smart, but we'll show them" diarrhoea.

All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him.

And he turned him unto his disciples, and said privately, Blessed are the eyes which see the things that ye see:

For I tell you, that many prophets and kings have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them.

And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?

Apparently we're not in a private meeting anymore. Although this sort of jump is annoying, it is partly just the result of how the books of the NT were written down. They tended to be just one big wall of text, with very little punctuation even in the loosest sense, and certainly no signs of the verses that we routinely reference. So it is inevitable that strange breaks like this happen from time to time. Unfortunately, it's not always obvious when the scene has changed.

He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?

And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.

And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.

But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?

The word "justify" here is a tricky one. It is translated into English from various words all over the ancient world; it's commonly used in translating inscriptions of the Egyptian Pharaohs, for example, and reached the heights of the UK music charts when Justified and Ancient, written and performed by Tammy Wynette and the KLF (Kopyright Liberation Front [one of whom was Jimmy Cauty who drew probably the most successful Lord of the Rings poster before Peter Jackson murdered the books]) hit the #2 spot.

In this sense, it is about making sure that your life passes whatever tests are required after you die. You must show that you were clean, or innocent, of sin. The English translation carries this sense of having to justify your actions in life before some cosmic judge.

I mention all this because it casts an uncertain light on what follows, which is probably the best known parable in the NT - the Good Samaritan. The word has always bothered me because it combines with something else that feels wrong — the story seems too simple. Most of the parables by C have a predictable subtext of "Bad Jew ignores Jesus, nice Greek accepts Jesus; world ends; Jew goes to Hell, Greek goes to Heaven" but this one seems to be all surface. Except that word "justify" sits at the start and suggests that the story is about facing that cosmic judge where the lawyer will learn the answer to his original question of whether he will have eternal life. Let's read the story in that light:

And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.

And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.

And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side.

But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him,

And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.

And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.

Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?

And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.

Starting at the end of the parable, the Samaritan is clearly Jesus - the person who rescues the man from the consequences of sinful ways, pays for their healing and promises that he will come again and the reward will be unlimited. The identity of the host and the inn are a little less obvious but maybe represent the mundane world and society at large. The suffering man comes from Jerusalem and goes to Jericho, from the city of the law to the city of Jehovah's wrath. So the man's role seems to be that of the law itself, which is the topic of conversation at the table, as well as that of the potential convert.

The thieves are shady but I expect them to represent Jews who, in C's eyes, followed the letter of the law while stripping it of its meaning and spirit, leaving it "half dead". The priests and Levites (a traditionally priestly tribal line) can not be expected to rescue the law, so an outsider arrives. As previously mentioned, Samaritans were regarded as outcasts because they (like the pagan Greeks) worshipped more than one deity.

So we have all the elements of a typical C parable: the bad Jews ignore the meaning of the law; Jesus fixes up the broken law in the guise not of a Greek but of a similar outsider; the law (and the person who has kept faith with the law) is saved and later is literally redeemed when Jesus comes back. The point about "which was the neighbour" is that there's no point looking for help from the Jews; they've become a bunch of thieves and hypocrites, a point repeatedly made elsewhere in the book. If the lawyer wants to justify himself before Jehovah, he must reject the Jews and embrace the new testament of Jesus.

The framing device of the meal at the table allows C to show Jesus as once again outsmarting those cunning Jews who, despite constantly inviting Jesus into their houses, feeding him, and having fairly civil philosophical conversations with him are nonetheless both always trying to trip him up and also being convinced by his answers.

Now it came to pass, as they went, that he entered into a certain village: and a certain woman named Martha received him into her house.

And she had a sister called Mary, which also sat at Jesus' feet, and heard his word.

But Martha was cumbered about much serving, and came to him, and said, Lord, dost thou not care that my sister hath left me to serve alone? bid her therefore that she help me.

And Jesus answered and said unto her, Martha, Martha, thou art careful and troubled about many things:

But one thing is needful: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her.

More creepy Jesus and his harem; I think we can all guess which "good part" Mary had chosen. Martha represents those people who think tomorrow will come; they do the dishes and bake bread etc. but don't worry about the state of their souls — that can wait. Mary knows that the judgement day could happen at any time, so she attends to her soul by listening to Jesus. But Jesus still needs the bread that Martha is baking. As Dorothy Parker said:

Drink and dance and laugh and lie,

Love, the reeling midnight through,

For tomorrow we shall die! 

(But, alas, we never do.) 

Christians have been hoping for the return of their non-existent Christ for 2000 years; it's still "just around the corner".

At least we didn't have to talk about John the Baptist again.

Luke Chapter 9 - We need to talk about John. Again

Reading the book from the start really throws up some patterns that are not at all clear when, as is the normal case, one is simply presented with "illustrative" parts of the Bible in bite-sized pieces. I certainly had never realised that there was such an obsession with establishing John the Baptist as not being Christ.

Aside from that, this chapter also contains some more remnants of the apocalyptic Jesus which C has been toning down. Why do these bits remain? Probably for the same reason that he keeps going on about John - the issues were so well known in the contemporary Christian communities of C's time and place that he simply could not ignore them. In the case of John, he fights them, with the apocalyptic sayings he tries to simply present them with as little context as possible so that they seem like just weird random sayings. This has the side effect of making his character of Jesus seem almost drunken at times, but a lot can be hidden with the fig-leaf of "oh, that's him being mystical" which has been the excuse for incoherent or badly thought-out doctrines for the whole of recorded history.

Chapter 9

Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases.

And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick.

And he said unto them, Take nothing for your journey, neither staves, nor scrip, neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece.

And whatsoever house ye enter into, there abide, and thence depart.

And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them.

This seems somewhat obscure but basically, as will be explained in the next chapter, it's a way of saying that you'll have nothing to do with the city (i.e., tiny village) in question and don't want to take any part of it, not even the dust from the streets, with you when you go.

This is classic Biblical tar-everyone-with-the-same-brush bullshit. It's cretinous, childish, simplistic, stupid, and unbelievable. C's tendency for hyperbole is tiresome and his morality pathetically black-and-white. The disciples are either to literally knock on every door in every town and village/city, or alternatively to condemn the whole population of a place based on some random sample. Either way, it's just rubbish for simpletons.

And they departed, and went through the towns, preaching the gospel, and healing every where.

Now Herod the tetrarch heard of all that was done by him: and he was perplexed, because that it was said of some, that John was risen from the dead;

Something that I've not really talked about is this issue of thinking people had risen from the dead. It's already happened once in the book and here we have an example of people being ready to believe it has happened. This throws some light on the eventual resurrection of Jesus, in that it shows willingness to believe such things were possible. It's sometimes said that Jesus must have existed and must have risen because it is so incredible that no one would make it up. Yet here the text of the NT itself says that false accounts of people rising from the dead were in circulation. But that means that such stories were possible even when it was not true, so we can apply the same standard to Jesus and say that, yes, it was possible that Jesus didn't really rise because the Bible says that there's no inherent reason to believe such a tale.

However, we've missed a minor detail: John's dead. When did that happen? John's last appearance was as a very much alive leader of a sect who was sending his disciples to quiz Jesus about his nature.

Indeed, the word "disciples" is one that C uses a lot. In the sequel to "Luke", he means basically any follower of another person and in particular uses it in reference to the continuing preaching of the 12 disciples of, yes you guessed it, John the Baptist who run into Paul in Corinth in mainland Greece. Naturally, since C's version of Paul is an infallible superman of the same ilk as Jesus, he sets them straight and all is well. There's no more reason to think that C met Paul than that he did Jesus, of course.

And while we're at it, what about John the Baptist? Is he any more real than Jesus? Well, there is one historical reference to John (in Josephus) that I can find and it seems to be genuine, although there are some who think it's an edit by a later Christian, in the same way that Tacitus' reference to a persecution under Nero was added by later generations wanting to prove that they were hard done by under Roman rule rather than they being a bunch of bloody-minded bigoted trouble makers incapable of living with people who had a different viewpoint.

So, I consider John the Baptist as being very lightly pencilled in under the heading of "Real People". Which doesn't matter much, really. The world is full of examples of two cults of completely non-existent gods or whatever who are at each others' throats. Neither Jesus nor John need to exist for their followers to be rivals. By the same token, a valuable philosophical point or teaching put into the mouth of a fictional character is still a valuable philosophical point or teaching.

But C's obsession with John didn't extend to mentioning that he was dead, strangely. I can only guess that C simply wanted to skip over any impression that John's death was important in itself. In his version of events, John's function - although important at the time - was done and the quicker he stopped being in the story the better. Although that wouldn't explain why C just can't seem to stop talking about him. There's still a couple of mentions to come later in the book.

And of some, that Elias had appeared; and of others, that one of the old prophets was risen again.

Again, we see that wild speculation about supernatural events that could express themselves as people was perfectly possible which neutralises any attempt to claim that Jesus has to have existed because so many people were influenced by the belief that he did.

There's different ways to read this verse - one is that it refers to John and that the people, including Herod Antipas, think that he has really risen, and another is that these people have heard of Jesus and are confused, thinking that Jesus is John. The clue is the mention of "Elias" - "Elijah" is another spelling. John the Baptist was specifically identified with the spirit of Elias way back in chapter 1, by an "angel of the lord". So it seems that the rumour has started that John - Elias, one of the "old prophets" - has come back from the dead quite independently from Jesus.

At this point I think we can put forward a theory about Jesus: John the baptist was thought to be the Christ; he taught in out of the way places and was in some way viewed as dangerous to the king (Herod) but also to the temple. He was arrested on the basis of this, perhaps on trumped up charges, tried, and then executed. Some time after he died, the story started to go around that he was somehow still alive and his disciples went out across the eastern Mediterranean (at least) preaching some sort of salvation in his name. All of this is attested in the Bible itself.

The dead John, assuming that he existed, would have been easy to prove - put his head on a pole and let anyone see it. But anyone with the correctly adjusted spectacles of faith can get around that, in exactly the same way that the Docetists would about Jesus: simply claim that it seems to be John but that he's come back anyway as another person called Jesus. Notice (spoiler alert) that this would be a parallel with the risen Jesus who we are told was not recognizable as the same person.

Each messiah movement that ends with a dead messiah faces the same challenge - to explain the corpse. Here we have three attempts (Johnites, Jesusites, Docetists) to address it in the same way - "he only seems to be dead, he's actually over there!" Reality is kept at bay for a little while longer.

The Christians transferred their stories about John onto a real person called Jesus or something similar and went merrily on. When Jesus died or wandered off, the religion carried on because, really, it never needed him much at all. In this theory there is a "historical" Jesus but we know nothing about him; all the material is projected onto someone who was probably just a good preacher with a similar outlook to the dead John. That's why we actually never hear anything about Jesus's life until long after he left the picture, his disciples simply didn't care about his life or his mother or the rest of it. They cared about John's story and preserved that instead.

Well, it's a thought. In any case, the huge overlap of the two stories undermines any claim that both are true and if one isn't true, there's no objective way to prove which one (if either), although John's story is acknowledged by the NT to be older.

An alternative is that the basic story was going around, perhaps based on a previous failed messianic figure such as Judas the Galilean (who may be the figure underlying the NT Judas, since he was closely connected with the Pharisees) and that there simply was a disagreement about the name of the person at the centre. Over the years one name won out, but at no point was there actually a single person, just a load of folktales and a load of names and they became associated randomly and then were organized by later writers such as C. The same process led to the selection of books for the first canonical Christian Bible contents - dozens of books, some wildly contradictory, picked up and selected for largely personal reasons by one man and then set in stone as The Truth™.

And Herod said, John have I beheaded: but who is this, of whom I hear such things? And he desired to see him.

Notice that the text from verse 7 ("Now Herod") to here can be removed without affecting the readability of the result and that Herod will not be mentioned again in this chapter. It's as if someone added this chunk just to get in a bit of text about John. All the stranger as part of it will be repeated later on here. I blame the editor.

And the apostles, when they were returned, told him all that they had done. And he took them, and went aside privately into a desert place belonging to the city called Bethsaida.

And the people, when they knew it, followed him: and he received them, and spake unto them of the kingdom of God, and healed them that had need of healing.

The cleric's always the healbot.

And when the day began to wear away, then came the twelve, and said unto him, Send the multitude away, that they may go into the towns and country round about, and lodge, and get victuals: for we are here in a desert place.

But he said unto them, Give ye them to eat. And they said, We have no more but five loaves and two fishes; except we should go and buy meat for all this people.

For they were about five thousand men. And he said to his disciples, Make them sit down by fifties in a company.

There are various versions of this story in which it is 300, 3000 or 5000 that are to be fed. Not surprisingly, C has the biggest number. 

And they did so, and made them all sit down.

Then he took the five loaves and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven, he blessed them, and brake, and gave to the disciples to set before the multitude.

And they did eat, and were all filled: and there was taken up of fragments that remained to them twelve baskets.

And it came to pass, as he was alone praying, his disciples were with him: and he asked them, saying, Whom say the people that I am?

They answering said, John the Baptist; but some say, Elias; and others say, that one of the old prophets is risen again.

He said unto them, But whom say ye that I am? Peter answering said, The Christ of God.

And he straitly charged them, and commanded them to tell no man that thing;

This part is a very rare example of Jesus acting like a real person. He's chatting with the others and asking them things which someone in his situation might actually ask (if they weren't the son of god, in which case he'd already know, just like he reads people's minds) and when he hears the answer (some of which is a direct quote from earlier in the chapter) he suggests caution. Because a real person would perhaps be worried about what would happen if word started to spread that he was the messiah. And "messiah" is what Peter calls him. He doesn't call him "the son of god" but the "Christ of God".

Unfortunately this little scene isn't grandiose enough for C and he slaps in the following load of mystery crap next:

Saying, The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be slain, and be raised the third day.

And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.

It has been said that "take up your cross" was a pre-existing phrase in the Roman world, which is possible if crucifixion was common, but I've not found a reliable source for that claim.

For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it.

For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or be cast away?

For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels.

But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.

Ah. Well, as it happened, there were not. Jesus is predicting the end of the world in the lifetime of at least some disciples. By the year 90+ when C was writing, this would have started to look unlikely. We don't know what happened to the disciples (none of the well-known stories are at all reliable and none of them appear in the Bible, strangely enough) but it would have just about been possible that someone in this scene was still alive 60 years later, as C would have counted it. 

And it came to pass about an eight days after these sayings, he took Peter and John and James, and went up into a mountain to pray.

"8 days"? That's a bit specific, isn't it? Not "about a week". All the more strange as C is overruling A and B here, who say that it was 6 days. D, as usual, has nothing about any of this stuff which is a much more significant disagreement than a couple of days here or there.

The next section of the chapter is just an awful pile of lies; one fantastical notion on top of another. An allegory that's got mixed up with real life. The fact that this bollocks is accepted as one of the most important events in Jesus's life shows just how easily early Christians accepted "evidence" in the form of wild and impossible claims. With that sort of gullibility, there's every chance that a completely fictional character could, like Zeus, Shiva, Moses, Odin, Juggernaut, and the other 7000 gods, be accepted as a real thing. 

And as he prayed, the fashion of his countenance was altered, and his raiment was white and glistering.

And, behold, there talked with him two men, which were Moses and Elias:

Moses = Old Testament; Elias = Prophecy/Expectations of a New Testament, or at least a messiah. The latter is why Elias/Elija keeps getting linked to possible messiahs like John and Jesus.

Who appeared in glory, and spake of his decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem.

But Peter and they that were with him were heavy with sleep: and when they were awake, they saw his glory, and the two men that stood with him.

Heavy with drink, more like. This whole episode is in the realms of magic, so there's little point in trying to analyse it, but this is the first plain statement that Jesus will die in Jerusalem, although he has hinted as much to the disciples. Here, the hints are confirmed but, strangely, only to Jesus, who already knew. Peter and Co. have dozed off and neither Moses, Jesus, nor Elias seem to want to wake them up, so what was the point of all that "spaking"? Obviously, it's a literary device; the people that are really being spoken to are the readers, not the characters.

It's unfortunate that we know so little about the disciples as it's temping to see some parallel between the two sets of three characters here—otherwise why only 3 disciples? But aside from Peter and Judas we really know nothing about the disciples and can't guess what linkage C (really B) was making.

However, given his obsession with John the Baptist, it may be that C included this silliness in part to say "look, the dead John/Elias is giving his blessing to Jesus". 

And it came to pass, as they departed from him, Peter said unto Jesus, Master, it is good for us to be here: and let us make three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias: not knowing what he said.

It's not clear to me what they wanted to put in these tabernacles (cupboards or booths, sometimes used for storing scrolls) nor why Peter doesn't know what he's saying.

While he thus spake, there came a cloud, and overshadowed them: and they feared as they entered into the cloud.

And there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him.

And when the voice was past, Jesus was found alone. And they kept it close, and told no man in those days any of those things which they had seen.

So what was the point? Peter had already said that Jesus was the son of god.

And it came to pass, that on the next day, when they were come down from the hill, much people met him.

And, behold, a man of the company cried out, saying, Master, I beseech thee, look upon my son: for he is mine only child.

And, lo, a spirit taketh him, and he suddenly crieth out; and it teareth him that he foameth again, and bruising him hardly departeth from him.

And I besought thy disciples to cast him out; and they could not.

Yeah, well, that's because he has epilepsy not "devils".

And Jesus answering said, O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you, and suffer you? Bring thy son hither.

And as he was yet a coming, the devil threw him down, and tare him. And Jesus rebuked the unclean spirit, and healed the child, and delivered him again to his father.

And they were all amazed at the mighty power of God. But while they wondered every one at all things which Jesus did, he said unto his disciples,

Let these sayings sink down into your ears: for the Son of man shall be delivered into the hands of men.

But they understood not this saying, and it was hid from them, that they perceived it not: and they feared to ask him of that saying.

a) Jesus is grumpy. b) Jesus insists on saying things that a fool could understand yet doesn't want them understood. c) The disciples don't understand. d) This is more literary invention for the reader, not actual events of any sort.

Then there arose a reasoning among them, which of them should be greatest.

e) The disciples drink too much.

And Jesus, perceiving the thought of their heart, took a child, and set him by him,

And said unto them, Whosoever shall receive this child in my name receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me receiveth him that sent me: for he that is least among you all, the same shall be great.

And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.

Gosh, I wonder who those people might have been following if it wasn't Jesus? Actually, the implications of later statements is that faith-healing was something of an industry, so they could have been following anyone or no one.

And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.

Jesus will later say that those not for him are against him. So someone who has never heard of Jesus, for example, will be both for and against him.

And it came to pass, when the time was come that he should be received up, he stedfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem,

And sent messengers before his face: and they went, and entered into a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him.

The Samaritans. When the Hebrews lost their elite families to conquest and exile, the ones left behind (i.e., the vast majority) developed their own ideas and split, as is the way with people making stuff up from nothing, into sects who believed differing things. When the exiles returned, complete with their expectations of still being in charge, they found themselves facing people who didn't accept their new monotheism and refused to cow-tow to their "returning" kings and princes. Worse, they specifically rejected the new Jewish religion and even said that the Jerusalem temple was a fraud. The rivalry between them was deep and bitter, not least because most Hebrews did accept the fancy-pants I've-been-to-Babylon-and-come-back-with-a-flood-narrative entitlement generation back as royalty. 

The Samaritans are named after the city which was their main stronghold - Samaria - where they worshipped Jehovah (as they always had) but, crucially, other deities too. Because they worshipped Jehovah and were racially identical outsiders often could not tell, nor care about, the difference between Jews and Samaritans. Indeed, Jews and Samaritans probably couldn't tell each other apart except for dress, any more than Protestants and Catholics can today.

The sect died out sometime in the first 700 years AD, the details being lost precisely because historians can find no accurate record that distinguishes them from Jews. It is often alleged that they became the Muslims, but the truth is that no one knows what happened to them and the Jews were largely left to write their history. In a fair and balanced way, of course!

And they did not receive him, because his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem.

Totally inexplicable comment, really. Why would a Samaritan give a toss one way or the other about a Jew going to Jerusalem?

And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?

Yeah, go on; I'll wait here. What a pack of buffoons. Anyway, Elias tempted god to kill some people and god did it, is basically all you need to know. The "temping of god" aspect is to be ignored.

But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.

For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.

Jesus will contradict this statement in a later chapter.

And it came to pass, that, as they went in the way, a certain man said unto him, Lord, I will follow thee whithersoever thou goest.

And Jesus said unto him, Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.

Well, maybe if you didn't treat your mum like shit she might let you stay with her once in a while? And in what way does this even relate to the man's statement? He wasn't asking for a hotel booking.

And he said unto another, Follow me. But he said, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father.

Jesus said unto him, Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God.

This grumpy nonsense must stand as one of the dumbest statements in the book, as well as illustrating once more that this Jesus is expecting the world to end very, very soon. There's literally no time to waste burying the dead!

And another also said, Lord, I will follow thee; but let me first go bid them farewell, which are at home at my house.

And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.

Not really big on forgiveness today, is he?

Checkpoint Luke

So we're ⅓ of the way through C's book of the life of Jesus and the tone is about to change somewhat, so I thought it would be worth looking at what we've had so far. Although a lot of what I've actually typed is about the text, the original point of this sequence of blog entries was to see if there was any real reason to think that C's gospel was written early on, and whether the story actually had any credibility as biography rather than myth.

Because of the first of these objectives I have had to pretend that C was not copying huge chunks of A and B's material, which in reality he clearly was. But, on the other hand, C's stated objective was to make all the material he was drawing on obsolete, so we can reasonably legitimately play the thought experiment of "what if he had succeeded?" and pretend that we don't have the other two synoptic gospels which, if C had held to the standard Christian methodology, he would have had destroyed once his version became the dominant one, leaving us as much in the dark about them as we are about the so-called "Q" gospel.

There are a couple of obvious anachronisms in C's account, already, which suggest that it was not an early document (quite apart from his introduction which make it clear that many previous documents had already been written). The first one is the obsession with Pharisees, who were not the dominant party in the supposed time of Jesus, but were towards the end of the 1st century. C also seems hazy on dates which should, if he was writing early, have not been so long before that they would be hard to check (although the fact that he's hundres of miles away in Asia Minor won't have helped). Finally, of course, there's the siege of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple which have only been hinted at but are more openly discussed in later chapters. So, a reasonable amount of the book dates from post A.D. 70 and, given the nature of some of it, I'd guess quite a bit later.

What about the biographical nature of the story - how much of it could represent a real Jesus? First we need to define "real Jesus".

For a start, all the material C is compiling was written or spoken by someone, even if that person was C! So real historical people are at the core of this text in some sense. But if C's gospel is a collection of old myths, popular sayings, and what at the time were often quoted statements by many different preachers, one of which happened to be called "Jesus", does that count as finding the "real Jesus"? Not really, no. One of the main reasons for looking for something stronger is that, aside from all the other textual or contextual issues, use of language, patterns of speech or whatever one might want to throw at the issue, "Jesus" was a really common name at the time and finding one or two references to someone of that name would not be enough to pin down a specific person unless they were doing something which itself was unusual.

There is a similar problem with "James" which confuses discussions of the man who was, or maybe wasn't, Jesus's brother.

Within the Bible there are only two real traditions, two "witnesses" as apologists like to call them, to Jesus. One is the book we call "Mark", written by B, and one is the book we call "John", written by D. These Matthew and Luke lean very heavily on Mark for their material, too much so to really count them as different accounts by different people. D's story is wildly different from B's (and therefore from A and C's). Rather than giving a second vote of confidence to the life of Jesus, B and D's versions are so divergent that the really count as evidence that the story is built on very shaky ground.

But, let's pretend that C's work is all we have. What rings true, or at least possible? What parts of the story might represent a real person?

Chapter 1
Nothing here sounds remotely like the real world.

Chapter 2
The inn story in and of itself is possible, although the given reason (the census) is nonsense.

The story of the child teaching his elders is both common and possible; child prodigies are real things. Again, it's wrapped in unbelievable fantasy - the child is not just teaching in the synagogue, oh no, he's in the Temple in Jerusalem where his parents dropped him or something. But, yeah, it could happen.

Chapter 3
Jesus is baptised. Clearly, that's possible.

Chapter 4
He teaches in "the synagogue". There's plenty of reason to think that this is an exaggeration but it's still possible. He has some sort of falling out with the people in his village, and leaves.

Jesus starts healing people around here. Clearly shouting at devils doesn't cure disease, but faith healers around the world know that it can make people say that you've cured them of  a disease, so it's possible that Jesus's healings were real events even if not real healings.

Chapter 5
Jesus gains some closer followers who join him and does some more healing and a bit of teaching. The teaching isn't very noteworthy in itself. He has a run in with the established Jewish Church. C has the wrong specific people, but Church elders are Church elders the world around.

Chapter 6
More healing, more controversy, basically more of chapter 5.

Chapter 7
More of the same plus some dealings with the Romans. Could've happened.

Chapter 8
As above, plus an accumulation of women followers. Survived a rough sea crossing.

That's it. Everything else is patent nonsense so far. If we replaced all this with "there were people who", would it make any difference? For instance: "in that time there were many who healed by faith" instead of "Jesus healed those who had faith" doesn't actually change the stories. Similarly, Jesus's teaching are so generic that they could be from anyone.

There's no clear image of a specific person and none of these stories so far would raise any eyebrows if we heard that they were going on today: preachers preach, and many do "healing", and many healers find themselves at odds with established churches and attract followers; same at it ever was. The only thing that comes close is the childhood teaching incident which is at least unusual even though it's not unique (Josephus did something similar, at least according to Josephus).

The only stories that are really special are exactly those ones that we know are impossible - tempted by the devil, raising the dead etc. - and never happened.

What we need is an unusual but mundane (i.e., not supernatural) story for which there is unlikely to be a thousand examples that could be picked from and attached to any name the writer wants, whether Jesus or John. Preferably one that appears in the historical record outside of Christian writing. To put it a different way: C's Jesus has high entropy; we need something to reduce that before we can commit to him being a real person.

Don't hold your breath.

Luke Chapter 8: One for the Ladies

There is some feeling, reading "Luke" that C had a thematic plan for handling the pile of stories that he was editing together and in chapter 8 "stories involving women" seems to be the chosen topic. This, and other aspects of the editing, undermines any attempt to put the book into a timeline format. It's often said that the difference between the first three ("synoptic") gospels and the fourth one is that the former take place over a year and the latter over three years. But, at least in the case of "Luke", that's not really a defensible position due to lines like "on another Sabbath" which could gloss over any amount of time. It's true that only one passover is mentioned, but does that prove anything, especially in the light of the fourth gospel which mentions 3? Similarly, the repeated entries into Capernaum show that the internal chronology is not strictly linear. So it's not really possible to say, for example, that the events in chapter 8 come after chapter 7. The opening lines are a poor attempt to hide the fact that the material that follows is not genuinely organized temporally.

Chapter 8

And it came to pass afterward, that he went throughout every city and village, preaching and shewing the glad tidings of the kingdom of God: and the twelve were with him,

Okay, it gets tedious for me to point out that every time C says "every city and village" or something similar that he's talking about a tiny country in the arsehole of nowhere, but in this case it is worth pointing out, I think, that C is implicitly saying "every city and village [in the arsehole of nowhere] except Jerusalem", based on material that comes later which basically says that Jesus knows that Jerusalem is where he will have his final part to play. Of course, a historical Jesus may have felt that too, if we imagine him as a revolutionary or, as some have, as a fanatic convinced that he was going to call down Jehovah and bring the world to an end in a showdown with Rome. Although even this view, shared by many in the 1st century, shows how localised the whole cult was—a more worldly leader would surely go to Rome. Jerusalem was, like the land it was the putative capital of, not really very significant unless you were a Jew. It's main significance for the Romans was its value as an administrative centre and its troublesome population with its constant claims that the messiah had come in one form or another.

And certain women, which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils,

And Joanna the wife of Chuza Herod's steward, and Susanna, and many others, which ministered unto him of their substance.

So at least Joanna was married; it's not clear what her husband had to say about this. Which raises the question of what Jesus felt about marriage. We'll return to this later.

And when much people were gathered together, and were come to him out of every city, he spake by a parable:

A sower went out to sow his seed: and as he sowed, some fell by the way side; and it was trodden down, and the fowls of the air devoured it.

And some fell upon a rock; and as soon as it was sprung up, it withered away, because it lacked moisture.

And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprang up with it, and choked it.

And other fell on good ground, and sprang up, and bare fruit an hundredfold. And when he had said these things, he cried, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

So here we have Jesus saying that seed that fell on good ground would bare fruit "an hundredfold". A seed to crop ratio of 1:100 would have been amazing for the farmers he was speaking to—a miracle, in fact. They would have been used to regarding a ratio of 1:12 as a bumper harvest, and 1:6 as a decent year. Jesus holds out the fabulous possibility, albeit figuratively, to his followers of harvesting 100 for every 1 sown? Who could imagine such wonders? Well...

At the same time that C was writing these words there were, in fact, people enjoying such seed:crop ratios. The inhabitants of what would one day be The Americas would have regarded Jesus's harvest as a little disappointing because they had the wonder-plant Maize. Maize routinely produced 120 seeds for every one sown and didn't need to be ploughed in so the Americans didn't need horses or oxen to pull ploughs. Maize was the foundation of an economic system which, in terms of wealth generation, would not be rivalled until the discovery of oil refinement in the 19th century. While the devout Christians, Muslims and Jews scratched a living from the soil of the Middle-East under the supposedly benevolent eye of their petty war god, the pagan Americans were trying to think of things to do with all their free time (sadly, this seems to have mostly involved inventing insane deities).

When the Christians eventually found the descendants of these Americans they did not drop to their knees and thank the Lord that they had finally found the land that Jesus had spoken of, Instead they killed, raped and enslaved the inhabitants and destroyed their crops. The Spanish laughed at the Americans' use of Maize mixed with alkali solutions—and then went mad and died when they tried to survive on food made from the unprepared flour. They decided that Maze was dangerous and banned it.

With their economic base destroyed, the southern Americans were enslaved by the Christians who put them to work in gold and silver mines where it is estimated that 10,000,000 of them died from malnutrition and physical abuse with the full knowledge and consent of all the major Christian Churches (and the opposition of a few smaller ones).

Later, in the north, when George Washington wanted to wage genocide on the tribes that had sided with the French and British, it was their crops of Maize that were targeted so that every man, woman, and child not mown down with sabre, gun and canon would suffer a long and slow death from starvation. The generals who returned from these death missions would report banks of foodstores on a scale that no Christian American had ever seen before. Which they had then burnt.

So, yeah, Jesus's promise of 100-fold increase for your seed if you are "good ground" rings a bit hollow down the centuries and just stands as another testament to the inconvenient fact that undermines so much of the Bible: the "promised land" was, in fact, a bit shit. Actually, it was very shit. Moses was sold a stinker. Israel was, and is, a lousy place to live, requiring a huge amount of energy in for each unit of output. Compared to Egypt, Babylon/Assyria, the Danube Valley, North Africa, Italy, even Britain, Israel was a crap hole. For some reason, the god of everything had put his chosen people in a largely dry, harsh land where a crop ratio of 100 was literally a vision of heaven, but had rewarded a bunch of people who had never heard of him with something even better than heaven.

Ah, well, back to the fairy story:

And his disciples asked him, saying, What might this parable be?

Jesus hadn't selected his disciples for their brains, apparently. It's hard to imagine how the parable could be more obvious. One frustration in dealing with old text is how often the authors treat their readership like morons; it continues up into the 17th and 18th centuries, especially among religious works. Indeed, C. S. Lewis indulges in the same behaviour in The Screwtape Letters.

Here, however, it seems to be another remnant of the older view that the reason no one had heard of Jesus until after he died was that his actions and sayings were mysterious and weird. To wit:

And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.

This verse only makes sense in that light - no one could really have not understood the parable but here Jesus is basically winking and nudging the disciples with his elbow and saying "I'll let you in on the secret that these other numpties can't work out". None of which really makes sense in C's version but which he has lifted and tried to adapt from other material. Why would Jesus want to keep the Kingdom of God a secret? And if he did, why would he make up such bleeding obvious parables about it?

Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God.

Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.

They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away.

And that which fell among thorns are they, which, when they have heard, go forth, and are choked with cares and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection.

But that on the good ground are they, which in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience.

No man, when he hath lighted a candle, covereth it with a vessel, or putteth it under a bed; but setteth it on a candlestick, that they which enter in may see the light.

For nothing is secret, that shall not be made manifest; neither any thing hid, that shall not be known and come abroad.

These last two verses are indicative of C's inability to choose which version to stick to. After Jesus plainly stating that some things shall be, and are being, hidden from the normal man-in-the-street he then says that nothing shall be secret. The puzzle is not that two versions of Jesus existed, there were probably dozens by the time C came to write "Luke", it is why he was so incapable of choosing one over another when his explicit intent was to make a coherent exposition of what really happened.

The only explanation I can think of is that some of C's sources were already well established enough that he could not ignore them nor flatly contradict them. In a similar way, the followers of John Christ were so politically strong that he could not simply say "John was a false messiah" and had, instead, to find a way of casting a subtly different light on him and work from there (indeed, C will later on plainly state that saying anything bad about John would result in a mob stoning the speaker to death). Here, C has a "secret mission" and a "public mission" tradition to stitch together and he's (or "they've", as the case may be) decided to brass it out, in the immortal words of Margaret Thatcher. By placing the two statements together he is inviting readers to contrast them. To what end? I think perhaps flattery. The reader is supposed to feel that he (not "she", of course!) is one of those in the know, to whom nothing is secret and that these two verses are addressed to that inner circle and not, as it reads on the surface, as absolute declarations of openness.

Take heed therefore how ye hear: for whosoever hath, to him shall be given; and whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he seemeth to have.

Be careful how you listen, not just that you listen. Who could C be referring to here...?

Then came to him his mother and his brethren, and could not come at him for the press.

Bloody paparazzi.

And it was told him by certain which said, Thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to see thee.

And he answered and said unto them, My mother and my brethren are these which hear the word of God, and do it.

This bit seems to have been dropped in just because it's a story involving a woman. I'm not sure how the Catholic Church handled this part of the Bible story but it is very obvious that Jesus's mother and brothers did not believe that he was the messiah. He doesn't reject them simply because they're his family and the implication is that they did not "hear the word of God, and do it". It's a bit odd that he would use the words ascribed to him here - would you not just say "my family are these which hear the word of God, and do it"? Saying that the others are his mother seems weird. Anyway, the moral lesson is very much pro-civil war and apocalyptic with its undertones of "whosoever is not for us is against us" etc. And echos an earlier belief that Jesus would bring about the end of the world wherein brother would be set against brother.

So what about man and wife? Well, it's hard to see a marriage vow as being any more proof against the sort of division that Jesus draws here between himself and his own mother (notice that Joseph didn't turn up, so Jesus doesn't have to do linguistic tricks to spurn his "father" without saying that he was his father). In this context, the little harem that Jesus is trailing around with him now takes on a slightly sinister light. The opening verses of this chapter have frequently been used to justify sexual aspects of later Christian cults with "charismatic" leaders.

Now it came to pass on a certain day, that he went into a ship with his disciples: and he said unto them, Let us go over unto the other side of the lake. And they launched forth.

"A certain day" is another break in any attempt to build a solid timeline

But as they sailed he fell asleep: and there came down a storm of wind on the lake; and they were filled with water, and were in jeopardy.

And they came to him, and awoke him, saying, Master, master, we perish. Then he arose, and rebuked the wind and the raging of the water: and they ceased, and there was a calm.

And he said unto them, Where is your faith? And they being afraid wondered, saying one to another, What manner of man is this! for he commandeth even the winds and water, and they obey him.

Jesus is grumpy when you wake him just because you're going to drown (and would have, if you hadn't woken him).

And they arrived at the country of the Gadarenes, which is over against Galilee.

No, it wasn't. C's low-detail map has let him down again as the land of the Gadarenes was inland. This passage has been fiddled with on and off for 2,000 years in an attempt to make it historically accurate but the truth is that it just isn't.

And when he went forth to land, there met him out of the city a certain man, which had devils long time, and ware no clothes, neither abode in any house, but in the tombs.

When he saw Jesus, he cried out, and fell down before him, and with a loud voice said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God most high? I beseech thee, torment me not.

(For he had commanded the unclean spirit to come out of the man. For oftentimes it had caught him: and he was kept bound with chains and in fetters; and he brake the bands, and was driven of the devil into the wilderness.)

And Jesus asked him, saying, What is thy name? And he said, Legion: because many devils were entered into him.

This is a very strange moment, textually. "Legion" is what it says in the Greek text. But "legion" is a latin word. Nevertheless, in that time and place the word probably would have been recognized even by non-Latin speakers as meaning "lots"; although we were initially told that it was a single "unclean spirit".

And they besought him that he would not command them to go out into the deep.

And there was there an herd of many swine feeding on the mountain: and they besought him that he would suffer them to enter into them. And he suffered them.

Then went the devils out of the man, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the lake, and were choked.

When they that fed them saw what was done, they fled, and went and told it in the city and in the country.

Right, so Jesus has made a bargain with some "devils" and agreed to not kill them but put them in some pigs. Which results in the death (or whatever) of the devils and the pigs which, let's not forget, were not just wandering by; the pigs were someone's livelihood. Thanks a lot, Jesus!

Then they went out to see what was done; and came to Jesus, and found the man, out of whom the devils were departed, sitting at the feet of Jesus, clothed, and in his right mind: and they were afraid.

They also which saw it told them by what means he that was possessed of the devils was healed.

Then the whole multitude of the country of the Gadarenes round about besought him to depart from them; for they were taken with great fear: and he went up into the ship, and returned back again.

Because of the confused nature of the text here, it's hard to see what the point of all this was, although there are similarities with the story about Jesus going home and being rejected there and it might be that this is another version of that same story.

Now the man out of whom the devils were departed besought him that he might be with him: but Jesus sent him away, saying,

Return to thine own house, and shew how great things God hath done unto thee. And he went his way, and published throughout the whole city how great things Jesus had done unto him.

And it came to pass, that, when Jesus was returned, the people gladly received him: for they were all waiting for him.

Unlike the "Gararenes", whose pigs he'd killed.

And, behold, there came a man named Jairus, and he was a ruler of the synagogue: and he fell down at Jesus' feet, and besought him that he would come into his house:

Note that Jairus is a "ruler of the synagogue". His daughter is dying and all the Old Testament wisdom isn't going to save her. Where, oh where, can the Jews turn to when they are in trouble?

For he had one only daughter, about twelve years of age, and she lay a dying. But as he went the people thronged him.

And a woman having an issue of blood twelve years, which had spent all her living upon physicians, neither could be healed of any,

Came behind him, and touched the border of his garment: and immediately her issue of blood stanched.

There's that number again: 12 years old; 12 years of bleeding. This is not an eyewitness account. 

And Jesus said, Who touched me? When all denied, Peter and they that were with him said, Master, the multitude throng thee and press thee, and sayest thou, Who touched me?

And Jesus said, Somebody hath touched me: for I perceive that virtue is gone out of me.

More confused storytelling. We've seen many examples of Jesus reading people's minds, yet here he is reduced to asking silly questions. Also, it seems strange that Jesus would put it this way - "virtue is gone out of me", although that seems a decent translation of the Greek. Does this imply that there is a limit to what Jesus can do before it has all "gone out"? If not, then why would he care?

When people talk about the "historical Jesus" it's always worth remembering that this sort of junk is what the story of Jesus is made up of. Clearly this story originated in some writer who had no firm idea about what Jesus was supposed to be, and it was taken up and edited in by C, supposedly one of the smarter gospelers. It's far from inconceivable that people who would tolerate this sort of fantasy nonsense would be unable to tell a real person from a myth.

And when the woman saw that she was not hid, she came trembling, and falling down before him, she declared unto him before all the people for what cause she had touched him, and how she was healed immediately.

And he said unto her, Daughter, be of good comfort: thy faith hath made thee whole; go in peace.

While he yet spake, there cometh one from the ruler of the synagogue's house, saying to him, Thy daughter is dead; trouble not the Master.

But when Jesus heard it, he answered him, saying, Fear not: believe only, and she shall be made whole.

And when he came into the house, he suffered no man to go in, save Peter, and James, and John, and the father and the mother of the maiden.

And all wept, and bewailed her: but he said, Weep not; she is not dead, but sleepeth.

And they laughed him to scorn, knowing that she was dead.

And he put them all out, and took her by the hand, and called, saying, Maid, arise.

And her spirit came again, and she arose straightway: and he commanded to give her meat.

And her parents were astonished: but he charged them that they should tell no man what was done.

Was she dead or not? Initially she was "a dying" and then news came that she had died but Jesus said that if they had faith she would, like the woman with the bleeding, be "made whole". However, no one did believe him and in fact they actually laughed at him. But the girl got better anyway. So who's faith made her whole?