I hadn't intended this sub-blog to be about the Bible but my reading has been orbiting that puerile pile of piffle recently (I'm reading Seneca now) and thus it has been on my mind, so for the next while I'm going to be putting down some thoughts on its contents. Well, the New Testament at least; the Old Testament isn't worth the effort except insofar as it's where the writers of the NT initially went for their ideas of what the messiah would/should/must have done.
The books of the Bible were not, of course, written all at the same time; neither the old nor new testaments were themselves the work of a single creative output. The collation of the canonical sets of books gave later generations of Christians a very distorted view - probably on purpose - of how their religion came to be, and untangling the chronological order is the main battle ground not only between those who claim that Jesus existed as described and those who do not, but also between various sects who believe but interpret the stories in different ways. Indeed, those who do not believe the claims that Jesus was a god argue a great deal over the interpretation of the texts that have survived.
However, although the fine details are probably impossible to pin down, it is fairly easy to see that some books are later than others. Revelations may or may not be earlier than the "genuine" epistles of Paul, but it's certainly very early, and the gospels are certainly later, with Matthew and Luke probably being dependant on Mark and therefore later than it.
So I was a bit surprised to come across a woman online who was discussing how best to brainwash her kids into believing the fantasy of Jesus The God who casually dropped into the conversation that Luke was the first book of the New Testament to be written.
Luke is not only not the first book written, it's unusual in that it even suggests that itself. Most Bible books shy away from even hinting that they're not eye-witness accounts basically scribbled down immediately after the events they describe, but the author of "Luke" goes out of his way to tell us that he's writing a later work at the very start:
Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word. It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed. [Luke 1,1-4]
Now, this doesn't mean for certain that one of those "eyewitnesses" who had set forth their accounts wasn't the book we call Mark, but it is clear that the writer of Luke doesn't claim to be one of them himself.
"C" - The Writer Formally Known as "Luke"
So, before we start, who is this person? The simple answer is that no one knows. The book in question never claims to be by anyone called "Luke" and, like the other gospels, the name of the supposed author was attached centuries after it was written by people who were neither unbiased nor honest. I will refer to these authors as "A" (author of Matthew), "B" (author of Mark), "C" (author of Luke), and "D" (author of John) in an attempt to remove even the suggestion of identity that letters such as "L" for Luke might give.
The assumption will be that C is a man, but a sub-assumption will be that C is a group of men. For, while it seems that the vast bulk of the book is the work of one hand, there are places where it seems that some later editing has been done and the probability is that many small edits have been made - a word here and a phrase there - by other writers for various reasons, not all of which were dishonest. An exception to this seems probably to be the first two chapters which I am assured show signs of being from a different writer. Be that as it may, the theology in those chapters is very similar to what follows, although they are perhaps slightly more sympathetic to the Jews (by which I mean that they're not outright hostile to them).
With those points in mind, C seems to have been a Greek-speaking Roman, almost certainly from what we would call Turkey but which had been under Greek domination for centuries before Greece existed as a united country which itself was then absorbed into the Roman Empire.
This is an important aspect of understanding C's gospel - he is not from Palestine, he is not Jewish and never was, and most importantly of all, he is not a rebel. C gives every hint of being perfectly happy with the Roman Empire as an institution and this affects his decisions and writing throughout both this book and his other NT contribution - the Acts of the Apostles.
Being the undisputed, if slightly fuzzy, author of two large books of the NT is unusual; only in the epistles do we see a similar situation with a single author being credited with Romans, Galatians, the two Corinthian letters, and the first Thessalonian letter (who this author was is a different question but for now we'll just say "Paul" and leave it at that). The order of the books is a somewhat open question and at the moment my feeling is that Acts is later. The book of Luke makes no reference to anything written by Paul whereas Acts is mostly about him, which suggests to me that C did not have as much information about Paul while writing his gospel. However, the information in Acts about Paul is so unreliable and mythological in nature that I'm far from certain about this. The fact that Acts starts by reminding the recipient that C had already written a book about Jesus is, in fact, evidence of tampering. The real recipient and author would not need reminding of this and the wording seems iffy to me; I think it's "publisher's blurb".
Which brings me to the question of C's reliability and from that to the question of his honesty. In modern terms, C is a totally unreliable source who is able to shamelessly invent whole passages and alter text to suit his goal. But from the point of view of C and many Christians ancient and modern, he is justified if the end result carries the "Spirit of the Lord" to his readers. C is, in fact, what we would call in Britain an "anorak".
The curse of history is that by its nature it attracts systematizers; it is the curse of humanity that it contains within it so many systematizers in the first place. The origin of this tendency is in the brain's love for finding similarities which leads on to a desire to make similarities and thereby create a story which "makes sense" in that it doesn't jar with itself or the reader's expectations.
C clearly found himself with a pile of accounts of the Christ which were similar enough that he felt they belonged together in some way but which nevertheless had some problems which he wanted to solve by making his own digest or summary of them. It is a desire that has driven many historians since the dawn of writing itself and it drives novelists and bloggers too, of course. In its own right, it is not necessarily a problem so long as it is done reasonably honestly. Where it goes awry is when the writer starts adding bits because "that's the way it should have happened" or because the obvious explanation for something is distasteful to him and so an alternative has to be stated.
One strange aspect of C's background is that, not having ever been Jewish, he can not read Hebrew and is reliant on the Greek translation of the Old Testament which is commonly called the Septuagint ("the 70", and so abbreviated to "LXX", from a legend about its creation) and therefore on its classic and far-reaching mistranslation of Isaiah 7:14's use of the word for "young woman" into the Greek word for "virgin".
C is therefore writing at a time and place where Jewish interests in the events of the Christ are not paramount - indeed, they're hardly relevant to him - but nevertheless he is writing at a time when "Scripture" is the Old Testament of the LXX; the New Testament has not been created yet. In fact, he is attempting to create it, because the implication of his introduction is that his work will replace the imperfect works he is collating. Whether they are imperfect because they are factually wrong, in his eyes, or simply incomplete is neither here nor there - C's gospel is intended to be the
only gospel, and probably the same can be said of A, B, and D's view of their gospel - each probably ("B" possibly excepted) saw themselves as preparing the definitive account of the events from all those years before.
What this tells us is not clear because there is little in the text of the four gospels that were included in the Bible to give them relative dates. The strongest evidence is length - it's deemed unlikely that later writers would shorten works, and this fits well with C's declaration in that if he's working from multiple texts it would be expected that he would end up with something longer than any of his sources unless he found one particular long source especially unreliable, in which case why would he use it at all? So, the fact that Luke is much longer than Mark and contains a great deal of Mark's text within it is evidence that Mark is older. But it's not 100% sure. Just as C is producing a comprehensive overview of differing accounts, so B may have been preparing a shorter summary document that covered what he felt were just the most important points, and so could conceivably have taken Luke and thrown away most of it as part of this work. There are other reasons for dating Mark and Matthew first, but for now I will just assume that's the case and anyway I'm going to lean on Luke as far as possible as if C had succeeded in becoming the only account of the Christ (and of the Apostles of course, as the same goal of monopoly probably underlay the writing of Acts).
So what does C have to say?
Chapter 1
Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.
This is the opening previously discussed; the text I'm using is the KJV from Project Gutenberg but I will refer to other versions in these notes, as well as the original Greek. The main issue with this section of the text is that the meaning of "from the very first" is not carried across well from the original and C is describing a process of discovery and investigation rather than first-hand knowledge.
THERE was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.
And so we hit our first controversy - when did Herod die? His sons dated their reign (of the divided kingdom) from 4 B.C. but they may have been acting as regents as their father's death seems to have been a slow and painful one which dragged on for some time. The latest possible date is 1 B.C. In any case he died while Augustus was reigning as the first Emperor of the Roman Empire, Cæsar having been given the title while alive of Dictator only, although later writers would sometimes refer to him as Emperor.
And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.
And they had no child, because that Elisabeth was barren, and they both were now well stricken in years.
And it came to pass, that while he executed the priest's office before God in the order of his course,
According to the custom of the priest's office, his lot was to burn incense when he went into the temple of the Lord.
And the whole multitude of the people were praying without at the time of incense.
And there appeared unto him an angel of the Lord standing on the right side of the altar of incense.
And when Zacharias saw him, he was troubled, and fear fell upon him.
But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John.
And thou shalt have joy and gladness; and many shall rejoice at his birth.
For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.
I'm not sure what the implications of this is supposed to be. Are wine and strong drink a substitute for the Holy Ghost and/or vice versa? Is drinking wine a bad thing (bearing in mind that C will not include the water into wine trick)? C generally seems unhappy about drinking alcohol, although it was a fairly normal thing at the time.
And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God.
And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.
And Zacharias said unto the angel, Whereby shall I know this? for I am an old man, and my wife well stricken in years.
And the angel answering said unto him, I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God; and am sent to speak unto thee, and to shew thee these glad tidings.
And, behold, thou shalt be dumb, and not able to speak, until the day that these things shall be performed, because thou believest not my words, which shall be fulfilled in their season.
And the people waited for Zacharias, and marvelled that he tarried so long in the temple.
And when he came out, he could not speak unto them: and they perceived that he had seen a vision in the temple: for he beckoned unto them, and remained speechless.
And it came to pass, that, as soon as the days of his ministration were accomplished, he departed to his own house.
And after those days his wife Elisabeth conceived, and hid herself five months, saying,
Thus hath the Lord dealt with me in the days wherein he looked on me, to take away my reproach among men.
So, what is C going on about here? This strange, and indeed laughable story of John (the Baptist) and his conception is not only strange in itself but introduces a very difficult theological issue. John, according to this, is the result of a super-natural pregnancy caused by the "Holy Ghost". That makes John a son of God and Jesus's half-brother. The phrase "Holy Ghost" is of course very familiar to English speakers; the original Greek is something more like "the Holy Breath" and is based on the word "pneuma" from which we get air-related words like pneumatic and pneumonia. Why would C risk such an obvious parallel which confuses the issue of Jesus's parentage and uniqueness?
The answer is that C is trying to reconcile the information he has in front of him without causing a riot. We are used to linking the words "Jesus" and "Christ" to the point that Jesus Christ is, for many people, simply the messiah's first and last names. but "Christ" is a title and simply means "the anointed one". For that matter, "Jesus" is not a name any Jew was ever given, it's a Greek translation of a name which we would pronounce more like "Joshua". The title Christ could be given to anyone and in the first century it was sometimes given to someone other than Jesus - specifically, to John the Baptist.
C is trying to say here that, yes, John was very, very important and, yes, it may have seemed like he was the messiah what with being born without sex and his father being the Holy Ghost and all that, but that's just a confusion. He then goes on to deal with Jesus birth, clearly in the hope that this would settle the dispute that still rumbled on between followers of Christ Jesus and Christ John (which would continue into the fourth century and beyond, the die-hard Johnites eventually breaking away completely as the Mandeans, an incestuous group of gnostic nutters).
The story of Zacharias also give the first hint of C's biggest weakness as a source - his blithe acceptance, or casual creation, of details which are outrageously mythical. The sudden dumbness of Zacharias is something that would be noted, especially when it lasts months and lifts when his child is born. This theme runs through all of C's writing and is the clearest indicator that, for him, the events of Jesus's life take place "Once upon a time, far, far, away". These sorts of claims are not ones that can be made when the people involved are at hand to say "that never happened!" while at the same time, if the events had happened as claimed there would hardly have been any doubt about the authenticity of the messiah or his herald.
And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,
To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.
These two verses introduce a lot of myth. Nazareth was not a city - some think it was deserted at the time, but that's not as important as the fact that if it did exist then it was tiny. City ("polis") meant an inhabitation with walls to the Greek-speaking C, not some tiny settlement like that shown by modern archaeology. If C is writing later than A and B then we can credit A with this detail, which seems to have been plucked out of a prediction that the messiah would be a Nazarrite. A's Hebrew is no better than C's and he seems to have misread this reference to a sort of long-haired cultist as the name of a town.
Next we have the virgin birth. Well, this is again based on Isaiah and the mistranslated LXX text, but it's also worth noting that it was a standard device in the mythology of the day. Tell any ancient Roman that you follow a god born of a virgin and they'd probably not even notice the detail as exceptional. The most famous example today is probably Perseus, but in ye olden days of the Eastern Mediterranean you could find virgin births in Greco-Roman cities, Egypt, and in the stories told by travellers and merchants from India which may have included the claim that Buddha's mother was a virgin. My school-taught history of Rome, Egypt, and Greece - and most tourist material in the modern countries - don't mention that there were Buddhists in reasonable numbers wandering the shores of the Mediterranean Sea for a few centuries before all this Jesus stuff was supposed to be happening. Linkages between their teaching and mainstream philosophy seem not to have been the subject of a lot of research but it's well within the bounds of possibility that Buddhism and Christianity have had an ongoing relationship from the very start of the younger religion.
Next we have the phrase about Joseph being of the house of David. This is another cross-reference to a prophecy about a son of Joseph who would be the messiah. Being of the house of David is, depending on how you look at it, either impossible or trivially easy. It can be said to be impossible in that David (and his son Solomon) seems to have been a mythical king (total historical evidence so far: one broken rock that might have this name on it), but in a more applicable sense, since the belief of the people is what matters here, it's trivial since David was a slapper and put it about so much that his 19+ sons would have appeared in every living Jew's family tree within a few generations. So being of the house of David is a given.
But all this introduces another tricky issue - who cares about Joseph? He, after all, has nothing to do with Jesus; he's a passer by in all this having not even had sex with Mary at this point. So his lineage is irrelevant to Jesus. C has got caught up in trying to fulfil too many predictions and, ironically, it's only because he's trying to follow the mistranslation of a virgin birth that he runs into this issue. If Mary was simply a young woman, as the original prophecy said, then Joseph's family tree would matter and Jesus would be of the house of David, for all that's worth. As it is, C is drifting closer and closer to the rocks as he tries to make all the stories fit together.
And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.
And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.
And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
Notice that Mary, despite showing exactly the same scepticism as Zacharias doesn't get struck dumb. This is probably the first example of a woman getting better treatment than a man in the whole misogynistic book. Also notice, again, the similarities to John's story.
And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.
For with God nothing shall be impossible.
This translates to "it worked by magic" and will be the excuse for many things.
And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.
And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda;
And entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elisabeth.
And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:
And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.
And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.
And blessed is she that believed: for there shall be a performance of those things which were told her from the Lord.
C is really rubbing in the message here: John is not Christ. The episode itself is a primitive fairy-story for the under-9's. C often resorts to these in stories where there are no witnesses about and he can really let himself go without any fear of contradiction. Mary and Joseph are non-characters who exist only to give their child some legitimacy and play the same part in Jesus's myth as the sword in the stone does in King Arthur's.
And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord,
And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
As I said in the introduction, C is not in reality a single person and this last verse feels like it's been dropped in at a later date. In fact there's a stylistic jar here which make me suspicious of the text until "And Mary abode" as being even later than the bulk of the original author's work.
For he that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is his name.
And his mercy is on them that fear him from generation to generation.
He hath shewed strength with his arm; he hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
He hath put down the mighty from their seats, and exalted them of low degree.
He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away.
He hath holpen his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy;
As he spake to our fathers, to Abraham, and to his seed for ever.
And Mary abode with her about three months, and returned to her own house.
A man wrote this, didn't he? Mary goes to visit her cousin who is pregnant and stays for months but leaves just as the baby is due!? I don't think so. The motivation seems to be to establish that 9 months is up and then to just get on with things asap.
Now Elisabeth's full time came that she should be delivered; and she brought forth a son.
And her neighbours and her cousins heard how the Lord had shewed great mercy upon her; and they rejoiced with her.
And it came to pass, that on the eighth day they came to circumcise the child; and they called him Zacharias, after the name of his father.
And his mother answered and said, Not so; but he shall be called John.
And they said unto her, There is none of thy kindred that is called by this name.
And they made signs to his father, how he would have him called.
And he asked for a writing table, and wrote, saying, His name is John. And they marvelled all.
And his mouth was opened immediately, and his tongue loosed, and he spake, and praised God.
And fear came on all that dwelt round about them: and all these sayings were noised abroad throughout all the hill country of Judaea.
Well, they would, wouldn't they? They're well known from non-Jewish accounts of the period and area. Oh, wait, no they're not.
And all they that heard them laid them up in their hearts, saying, What manner of child shall this be! And the hand of the Lord was with him.
And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying,
Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people,
And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David;
As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began:
That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us;
To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant;
The oath which he sware to our father Abraham,
That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear,
In holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life.
The question is: who are these enemies? C may have a different opinion from what a real Zacharias might have had.
And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways;
To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins,
Through the tender mercy of our God; whereby the dayspring from on high hath visited us,
To give light to them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace.
And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, and was in the deserts till the day of his shewing unto Israel.
Grew up to be...grew up to beee, a boy named Brian, a boy named Brian. Not a girl named Brian, no not a girl called Brian...etc.
Seriously, though, folks, keeping your children in the desert, especially when you work in the temple in the middle of urban Jerusalem isn't a good idea, so don't try this at home. Once again, C is inserting or simply not filtering out from his sources, a detail which is legendary in nature and makes no sense in the real world. It's a bad habit but not one he's going to break out of any day soon as we plough on into:
Chapter 2
Having dealt with what is today the totally unimportant issue of John the Baptist's mystical nativity, it's time for C to deal with the main event. To us, Jesus's birth is a familiar story but one which is rocky on some points due to the differences in details preserved in the final cut. This for me was the first place I felt uncomfortable with what I was being told as a child. I assume that C had similar issues with the material in front of him and once again it's worth remembering that he saw the future as consisting of his, and only his, account.
And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.
Even if we take "all the world" as being a common phrase for "the known world" and that to mean "The Empire", this is wrong. Augustus did decree a census of Judea, an area smaller than Sicily. The date of this census was A.D. 6. There were earlier Roman censi but they would not have applied to Judea as it was semi-autonomous at the time under King Herod.
(And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)
Again, this places the census in A.D. 6 or so.
And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.
This is a difficult statement to make sense of. The Jews once had a tribal system whereby dispersed populations - like shepherds, for example - had to return to their tribal centres for taxation purposes, but censuses per se were illegal and the census in question actually sparked riots and a revolt under Judas of Galilee. The Romans were not terribly interested in Jewish tribal boundaries anyway. Finally, the Roman tax was a property tax, not a poll-tax, so you registered where you lived and travelling to where your family came from is nonsense from the Roman point of view.
And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:)
Unfortunately for C, if Josephus was from Galilee would not have been involved in a taxation census in Judea. C is basically copying Josephus's account of the Judas revolt here, which places this part of the text at some time after A.D. 93.
To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.
Nor would Mary who is certainly "great with child" at this point having been pregnant for at least 6 years. But then "For with God nothing shall be impossible".
So we can see that C has got the story into a real mess now. Why? This tangle of half-truths and impossible dates must have seemed better than the alternative to him. But what was that alternative? From today looking back it's hard to even see why any of this mattered. Born in Nazareth, born in Bethlehem, so what?
Well, as with the story of Christ John, C seems to be trying to shoehorn in two opposing expectations - that the messiah would come from the City of David (Bethlehem), and that he would come from Nazareth (a mistake, but it was one that someone else had made and C probably didn't understand the original Hebrew that would have allowed him to make a correction). C remains convinced that Nazareth is a city and probably that it was important in some way. So he invents/modifies a story to explain that Jesus is from Nazareth and Bethlehem. The idea that Jesus had to fulfil ALL the ancient Jewish prophecies was critical at the time and the doctrinal debates were ferocious and viscous. C is trying once more to smooth over these issues and serve everyone, at least everyone who can't count.
If we accept that C had A's Matthew manuscript available then he is rejecting a lot of the details there; alternatively, A later rejects C's details. In either case it is clear that the writers of the gospels were working with uncertain information and it seems that their criteria for accepting or rejecting was the best fit to scripture (i.e., OT predictions) rather than historical probability.
And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered.
And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.
Tripe. C has just told us that Joseph has made the journey to Bethlehem because it's his tribal home. They would have stayed with his family, although there was no reason for Mary to go under Roman or Jewish law since under both she is basically chattel and has no more relevance to a census than Joseph's coat.
We don't, from the contents of the Bible, have any real reason to think that Joseph was particularly old, and we're not told that he's an orphan or anything so in a city the size of Bethlehem it should have been possible to get help quickly. Notice the phrase "while they were there", not "as they arrived", or "suddenly, while they were still on the road".
But, yeah, these things do happen and when it's time, it's time. Even so, the whole story creaks like a string-tied boat in a force 8 gale. The real motivation is to introduce the Dionysian theme of the humble made great, which was a mainstay of Greek literature for 500 years before this particular Greek sat down to compose the "Definitive True Story"
And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.
This was the first step on my realisation that the Bible was made up in the same way as other myths like the Minotaur or the creation from the armpit of Ymir. Is it kings or shepherds? If it was kings, why would Luke not at least mention them? If it was shepherds, why make up kings? It was a crack in the foundation and when I started to look closely, there were lots of them. But, for me, this was the first.
Anyway, why shepherds? It's quite specific sounding to us, but shepherding was a very common occupation in the ancient world and the great god Pan's association with strange goings on had made them central characters in many Greek plays where they sometimes appear as messengers delivering news which causes a massive upset such as the fall of kings as in Sophocles' Œdipus the King. So our literary C would perhaps have been primed to prefer shepherds to kings, if he had the choice.
Another angle is the familiar imagery of Jesus as the Lamb of God. But was it familiar to C? If he had Revelations to hand, yes. But Revelations is so totally unlike the gospels that I find it hard to believe that any of their authors, except perhaps D, would have accepted it as fitting their notion of Jesus. Revelation is just too Jewish for these Greek writers from pagan backgrounds.
Or maybe it's another part of the Dionysian theme.
And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid.
And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.
For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.
And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.
And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,
Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.
And it came to pass, as the angels were gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another, Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us.
And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger.
I suppose the manger could have been in Joe's mum's house. Maybe it was the manger he was born in; maybe being born in a manger was a family tradition.
And when they had seen it, they made known abroad the saying which was told them concerning this child.
And all they that heard it wondered at those things which were told them by the shepherds.
Notice that the shepherds were not: a) arrested for blasphemy, or b) stoned to death, or c) taken into protective custody by the Romans (who did do such things). C is indulging his "long ago" setting again.
But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart.
A nice line.
And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen, as it was told unto them.
And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.
And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord;
"I don't care if your child is the Lord God almighty, you're impure because you have wantonly engaged in the freakish disgusting habit of having a child. I hope you're ashamed of yourself". Again, written by a man.
(As it is written in the law of the LORD, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;)
"Your husband, on the other hand has successfully stuck his penis into you and is therefore a jolly good fellow and a proper man, not some girly poof. Have a cigar, Joe. Although, hold on! You've not touched Mary, she's supposed to be a virgin! Give me that cigar back, you irrelevant fool. I don't know why we even mentioned opening the womb in this context.". A lapse in concentration on C's part here, I think.
And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.
So, the creator of the universe wants you to honour him by, er, breaking things he created. That makes sense.
And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him.
Uh oh, Simeon. Lock up your wife, the Holy Ghost is in town.
And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ.
And he came by the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law,
Then took he him up in his arms, and blessed God, and said,
Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word:
For mine eyes have seen thy salvation,
Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people;
A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel.
First mention of the Gentiles. C is a Gentile. Just sayin'.
The Greek word used here is actually just the one for "foreigner" and is the root of our word "ethnic", meaning "an inferior race or culture who nevertheless make interesting ornaments to take home from holiday". Some Bibles translate this as "pagan"; "gentile" ultimately derives from the Latin for "nation".
And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.
And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his mother, Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against;
There's a game Biblical scholars play called "Is this the Temple?". Basically, you read any mention of Israel, literal or metaphroical, and then you ask if it's a reference to the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in A.D. 70. This is done in a hope that you can place a lower limit on the date at which the text was written. One problem with this game is that anything can be read as a metaphor if you try hard enough, and the second one is that it assumes the text is monolithic when it is not. Just because one verse is a reference to the fall of the Temple doesn't mean the whole book is that young or old.
(Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also,) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.
And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser: she was of a great age, and had lived with an husband seven years from her virginity;
And she was a widow of about fourscore and four years, which departed not from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day.
So we're 91 years from her wedding night, which makes her well over 100 years old. Luckily, the Holy ghost is busy with Simeon.
And she coming in that instant gave thanks likewise unto the Lord, and spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem.
And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth.
You can say it as often as you like, but it still ain't a city.
And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him.
C finally hits the rocks properly here. How can the grace of God be upon himself? How can the incarnated creator wax in anything other than its physical form? C's Jesus is patently not God, he is a growing learning being of some sort but is separate from God. People will be murdered over this and similar verses. For their own good, of course. Jesus's followers are like that; always thinking about the other guy - that they're burning.
Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover.
And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast.
And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it.
But they, supposing him to have been in the company, went a day's journey; and they sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintance.
This verse will become important much later on (duh, dun, DUH!).
And when they found him not, they turned back again to Jerusalem, seeking him.
And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions.
And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers.
And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.
And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?
This backs up the point about Joseph's parentage being irrelevant to Jesus.
And they understood not the saying which he spake unto them.
Jesus is repeatedly depicted as speaking in ways which confuse his listeners, starting here when he's only 12. Luckily, he never writes anything down (not so much as a note to be sent to someone); that would probably be even worse. You have to ask about the quality of a teacher who no one understands but i think the reality here is a Nostradamus effect whereby verses are deliberately obscure so that they can be interpreted as predictions in hindsight once something happens that fits. Jesus speaks in parables precisely because they are open to interpretation in different ways, thus increasing the chance that they'll "prove" to be correct eventually. Since the gospels are compiled many years after the stories started circulating, there's lots of hindsight already available to A, B, C, and D, so they often supply an answer to the riddles.
And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them: but his mother kept all these sayings in her heart.
Shave his head when he's asleep, that's what I suggest.
And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.
Again: Jesus is not God, he is learning and God approves.
After this we enter the realms of the "real" C that is accepted by most Bible scholars. These first chapters seem, apparently, to be by a different C from the rest of the book, although even these two chapters seem to have some variation in authorship to me. When they were added is not clear and it may be that the difference is simply that their text is closely copied from the sources mentioned at the start and so they do reflect the intent of the "real" original C compiler.
Chapter 3 next time.
