Luke Chapter 6, Pseudo-teachings

Chapter 6 contains a lot of material that is very familiar to any Westerner - in particular we have the gathering of the disciples and the material normally known as The Sermon on the Mount, although in this case the sermon is not delivered on a mount or hill of any kind.

As is the case with Greek plays, the book commonly called "Luke" is not a real history at all, although it purports to deal with historical characters and events. Just as Œdipus the King contains people its audience would have believed were real, so does "Luke", and like Œdipus, "Luke" is in reality a religious tract intended to make a moral point (or two). By now, C's point has been well established: the only real Christ is the one that fulfils the OT prophecies and those who reject him (Jews) are worse than those who simply do not understand him (Romans).

Chapter 6 continues this theme but fleshes it out a bit with some talk of what the third category—people who accept the real Christ—will receive for their troubles. Again, these rewards mirror the moral lesson of Œdipus in that they mainly consist in the weak or oppressed being rewarded while those who have everything lose it. This is very much standard Greek thinking, as well as standard wish-fulfilment for the poor of every land and time.

The very mundaneness of the teachings, coupled with the lack of agreement between the various sources (C doesn't promise the meek anything, for example) is a clear sign that the accounts of the teachings are not historically reliable, although that doesn't mean that Jesus did not exist any more than pointing out that "Play it again Sam" never appears in "Casablanca" implies that the film did not exist. It merely implies that the person telling us about the film did not actually see it. If we can not find anyone who saw it and no existing copies of it, then maybe we should start to wonder.

Chapter 6

We kick off with a classic bit of pretend history - C specifies that we're a week on from Jesus's rejection at his home "city" of Nazareth:

And it came to pass on the second sabbath after the first, that he went through the corn fields; and his disciples plucked the ears of corn, and did eat, rubbing them in their hands.

And certain of the Pharisees said unto them, Why do ye that which is not lawful to do on the sabbath days?

And Jesus answering them said, Have ye not read so much as this, what David did, when himself was an hungred, and they which were with him; 

How he went into the house of God, and did take and eat the shewbread, and gave also to them that were with him; which it is not lawful to eat but for the priests alone? 

And he said unto them, That the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.

C is specifically linking Jesus with the mythical King David (who was a complete bastard and not a fit role-model for anyone other than mass murderers, but let's leave that aside for now). The theological point here is typically confused. Is Jesus saying that the Sabbath is not important? Or that descendants of David can ignore it if they need to? Or that he is king and the rightful king can do so? For the modern reader, the argument seems to hang on the phrase "Son of man". What does C mean by this? He's already used it once and will do so many more times.

The "Son of man" is a reference to a particularly bizarre dream that Daniel had in Babylon (Daniel 7) and in it

I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like a Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

The exact meaning of the phrase seems to simply be "a being that seemed like a human man". The KJV mistranslates Daniel here (deliberately, I assume) to put the definite article in front of "Son" and so harmonize it with the NT, but the Aramaic is clear and "a son of man" is correct.

This dream forms the backbone of the Book of Revelations and shares with it a total lack of zoological knowledge and a vagueness that has allowed generation after generation to see its predictions as fitting their own time. The Book of Enoch picks up on Daniel's usage, which serves to point up yet again how completely shameless the fraudsters who wrote the Bible really were. Not only does the Book of Daniel pretend to be 400 years older than it is (allowing it to "predict" a load of stuff that had in fact already happened, although all its predictions for the real future failed to come true) but Enoch pretends to date from before the Flood, despite being even younger than the book of Daniel.

When people suggest that questioning something as basic as the existence of Jesus is unreasonable and an imposition that we don't make on other historical figures, the answer is that the existence of Jesus is claimed by a group of known and habitual liars and the same degree of good faith can not be assumed from or extended to them. They are quite capable of inventing supposedly sacred and holy texts from nowhere and then pretending that they have deep historical roots.

But I digress. The point is that in the 200 years between Daniel and Luke the phrase "like a son of man" had transformed into a title—"the Son of Man"—which identified the heavenly being who would overthrow the Evil Empire of the day. In Daniel, it was the Greeks, in Luke it is the Romans. So C is claiming here that Jesus flat-out told the Pharisees that he was this being and that, by reference to the Book of Daniel, he was going to overthrow the Roman Empire and bring all people into a kingdom that he would personally rule forever. Naturally, then, he can eat a bit of corn (meaning wheat or similar grasses, not maize, a point which will be ironically important later on) any time he bloody wants to, right? You can see why C leaves the "meek" out of his account.

And it came to pass also on another sabbath, that he entered into the synagogue and taught: and there was a man whose right hand was withered. 

C's attempt at a historical timeline lasted all of two weeks - we're onto "another" Sabbath now. Maybe ten years later; who knows?

And the scribes and Pharisees watched him, whether he would heal on the sabbath day; that they might find an accusation against him. 

But he knew their thoughts, and said to the man which had the withered hand, Rise up, and stand forth in the midst. And he arose and stood forth. 

Then said Jesus unto them, I will ask you one thing; Is it lawful on the sabbath days to do good, or to do evil? to save life, or to destroy it? 

And looking round about upon them all, he said unto the man, Stretch forth thy hand. And he did so: and his hand was restored whole as the other. 

While C makes a nice point about the punctiliousness of the Jews here, the logic is faulty since the guy's hand was not life-threatening and Jesus could have come back the next day; he didn't have to do anything on the Sabbath.

And they were filled with madness; and communed one with another what they might do to Jesus.

C's desire to paint the Jews black has again led him to paint them as caricatures instead. The only reasonable response to what the Pharisees have just seen are to follow Jesus or to accuse him of working with the devil to trick people. Neither works for C (who doesn't want to stress too much the idea that demons might be able to heal people), so he resorts to claiming that they were mad.

And it came to pass in those days, that he went out into a mountain to pray, and continued all night in prayer to God. 

And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles; 

Simon, (whom he also named Peter,) and Andrew his brother, James and John, Philip and Bartholomew, 

Simon/Peter is just a weird mess. It seems that there were two or three lists of disciples that largely agreed but didn't all have Peter on them and confusion arose as to whether Peter was known by different names - Simon, Peter, Cephas, or whatever. Peter has a shadowy post-gospel life too, fading out of Acts with no firm fate. Tradition has him martyred but there's no existing story that supports that view in the Bible other than a "prophecy" in John, who's author (D) was a halfwit of some sort.

Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon called Zelotes, 

And Judas the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor.

So that's 12. Why 12? Because there are 12 signs of the zodiac or, another way of saying the same thing, there are 12 months in the year. Similarly, there are 7 planets and so 7 is an important number in the Bible too. Astrology was big business in the Roman Empire and Christians (and Jews) often got grouped in with astrologers by officials. It has been suggested that there is a closer link to the zodiac than simply the numbers, and that each apostle can be associated with a particular sign. Hard to rule anything out but I don't see any real evidence for that.

And he came down with them, and stood in the plain, and the company of his disciples, and a great multitude of people out of all Judaea and Jerusalem, and from the sea coast of Tyre and Sidon, which came to hear him, and to be healed of their diseases; 

Not a single one of whom would leave any historical trace. None of them would write, or have inscribed, or otherwise record any account of this great event or be quoted by anyone who knew them. Because it never happened.

And they that were vexed with unclean spirits: and they were healed. 

And the whole multitude sought to touch him: for there went virtue out of him, and healed them all. 

And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said, Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God.

Blessed are ye that hunger now: for ye shall be filled. Blessed are ye that weep now: for ye shall laugh. 

Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake. 

Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy: for, behold, your reward is great in heaven: for in the like manner did their fathers unto the prophets.

C is on shaky ground here; the fathers who listened to the prophets largely got squat. Jewish history is one long uninterrupted wait for the golden age which is always just around the next bend and their prophets have a very poor track record as regards accuracy. As will prove to be the case with C.

But woe unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation. 

Woe unto you that are full! for ye shall hunger. Woe unto you that laugh now! for ye shall mourn and weep. 

Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets. 

But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, 

Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you. 

And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloak forbid not to take thy coat also. 

Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again. 

And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise. 

This is the crux of the division between C's Greco-Jewish sect and the parent Jewish mainstream. The latter resisted, and still resists, the influence of the Greek schools of philosophy from well before the arrival of the Romans. Indeed, the need to answer the challenge of the Greek civilization with its much wider worldview (and still more the Roman one) was central to expanding the Jewish view of their local war god into a cosmic deity of all creation. But for the Christians, the teachings of Socrates and other Classical thinkers (any number of whom could have written the above lines of Jesus, and some did, in fact write very similar lines) were too attractive, too forward-thinking to ignore. C is trying to find a synthesis between this material and the monotheistic view point which itself was showing itself in Greek thinking around this time.

For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them. 

And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same. 

And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again.

In other words: it's no big deal to be nice when there's no risk; Epicurius made the same point some time earlier. A similar point to chapter 5's bit about healing the sick instead of the healthy, or at least a similar tone.

But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.

However, all this is rather impractical advice, at least in the absolutist terms used here. There is a shadow of the oncoming apocalypse here, as there was with the advice to share everything. If the Son of Man is going to be setting up his kingdom any day now, there's no need to worry about the consequences of this sort of living.

The bit about "he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil" sits very oddly here, compared to the earlier promise that the evil will be burned in unquenchable flames. The doctrine that all the forgiveness stuff meant only to forgive other Christians, and murder anyone else, has deep roots in the religion.

Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful. 

Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven: 

Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again. 

And he spake a parable unto them, Can the blind lead the blind? shall they not both fall into the ditch? 

The disciple is not above his master: but every one that is perfect shall be as his master.
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 

Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye. 

For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 

So what should we make of a religion that is responsible for the slaughter of tens of millions? Look to the beam in your own eye, JC!

For every tree is known by his own fruit. For of thorns men do not gather figs, nor of a bramble bush gather they grapes. 

A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh. 

And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say? 

Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will shew you to whom he is like: 

He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock. 

But he that heareth, and doeth not, is like a man that without a foundation built an house upon the earth; against which the stream did beat vehemently, and immediately it fell; and the ruin of that house was great. 

Thus the chapter trails off in what is basically a rambling stream of fairly random "sayings" which make a point and then flog it to death while confusing the issue of whether Jehovah will forgive evil people or not. It reads like Jesus was drunk, to be honest. "I love youse guys, you know? Gimme another pint of water..."