Luke, Chapters 3 & 4

When we last saw our author, "C", he (or they) had established that John the Baptist only seemed to be the messiah and that Jesus, like John, was a creation of the Holy Ghost who was capable of growth and learning and was a separate entity from God. Many of these things seem not to be what C intended to establish but that's not my problem.

Chapters 3 and 4 are fairly dull stuff. Chapter 3 is mostly a bogus and irrelevant genealogy for someone, and chapter 4 is taken up with the well-known myth of the 40 days in the wilderness which kicks up various structural problems for the underlying theology as well as reliability of the author(s).

Chapter 3

Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene,

Tiberius's first year was A.D. 14, when Jesus would have been between 8 and 18 depending on which dates you think C had in mind. Based on the census story, he would be 8 that year so in the 15th year (A.D. 28) he would be 22. Taking the earlier birthdate and ignoring the census story, Jesus would be 32.

"Herod" here is Herod Antipas who had taken over part of the kingdom from his father in 4 B.C.; Philip had taken the other half. So they've been on the throne for about 32 years too. Pilate became governor in 26. The word used in the Greek for "govenor" is "hegemoneuo", which is quite generic but nothing worth quibbling over.

The list gives a little insight into C's sources and interests. He certainly seems to have access to a good library, partly because the Christians haven't burnt them all yet.

Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.

Annas and Ciaphas are, during this time, the Roman appointed high-priests of the Temple in Jerusalem and are Sadducees (they were never joint high-priests as C's text implies). They were generally despised by the Jewish population but they had major military power behind them if there was serious trouble. On the other hand, they would lose face with the Romans if they had to call on that power too often. The main sources of trouble for the Sadducees were the Pharisees and the Essenes who were nationalistic. The Essenes, who actively opposed the Christians, are simply airbrushed out of the whole Biblical account but the other two do make an appearance. 

C generally seems unsure, or uninterested in these issues, seeing all Jews as more or less the same and all more or less bad. This leads to some confusion in this book but in Acts it becomes comical.  

And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;

As it is written in the book of the words of Esaias the prophet, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

Every valley shall be filled, and every mountain and hill shall be brought low; and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough ways shall be made smooth;

Pretty standard stuff and, as the text itself says, just a re-tread of OT guff.

And all flesh shall see the salvation of God. 

Then said he to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

Well, that's nice. A "multitude" swarm by to hear him and he calls them a generation of vipers. I wonder what he thinks of the people who didn't trek out into the desert to be baptised?

Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: every tree therefore which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

The nazis (and many other anti-Jewish movements) will love this stuff, 1900 years later. It's easy to read this as hate-speech today but in the context of lonely nutters shouting about things it's par for the course - ask any filthy old bloke with a dog on a bit of string and a can of lager what's wrong with the world and you'll get a similar answer. As theology, however, it is dangerous stuff and a barely veiled call to violent action against whoever you might think is the tree that doesn't produce "good fruit". Is it also a reference to the burning of the Temple in A.D. 70?

And the people asked him, saying, What shall we do then?

Cut down all the trees? Jesus hates trees too, as we shall see later.

He answereth and saith unto them, He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do likewise.

Then came also publicans to be baptized, and said unto him, Master, what shall we do?

"Publicans" are not pub landlords but private contractors working for the tax department. As private individuals collecting tax they had a huge range of opportunities to line their own pockets or to curry favour by not collecting tax off rich people and forcing the poor to make up the loss. Just as Dave Hartnett did with Vodafone. Corrupt officials, like the poor, are always with us, and in both cases it's because Jesus never existed (more on this later).

And he said unto them, Exact no more than that which is appointed you.

And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.

Telling soldiers not to do violence seems a bit pointless - why not tell them to quit? The original Greek here probably carries an implication of intimidation so this may really be about soldiers throwing their weight around when among civilians and demanding things like board and lodgings, which would tie in with the comment on wages, although that comment is hardly union-approved. 

From a practical point of view we're seeing hints of the apocalypse here. What's the point of arguing over wages or owning two coats if the world is going to end soon? "And all flesh shall see the salvation of God" a few verses earlier was perhaps intended to carry a double meaning of Jesus and the apocalypse.

On the other hand, C is a lot less "the end is nigh" than, say, B. For C, at least 60 years have passed since Jesus was supposed to have told people that they would live to see the end and it was probably starting to look like a bad bet (other than for the obvious reason).

And as the people were in expectation, and all men mused in their hearts of John, whether he were the Christ, or not;

John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:

Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and will gather the wheat into his garner; but the chaff he will burn with fire unquenchable.

History suggests that John in fact did not do much to quash claims that he was the Christ and his followers continued a rivalry with the followers of Jesus for centuries, as previously mentioned. Of course, people can be stupid so it might not be John's fault but he cuts such a messianic figure even here that it's easy to believe that we're reading the history of two cults here, written by the winners.

In any case, the one who is to come after John is not especially meek sounding, and seems keen on burning people, or at least trees. Because that's how Bible-people win hearts and minds.

Strange linguistic note: the Greek word here for "unquenchable" is "ασβεστω", i.e., "asbesto", which we use today for a material noted for its inability to burn. 

And many other things in his exhortation preached he unto the people.

But Herod the tetrarch, being reproved by him for Herodias his brother Philip's wife, and for all the evils which Herod had done,

Herod (Antipas) had a fling with his sister-in-law which had become public. John apparently felt this worth a word or two.

Added yet this above all, that he shut up John in prison.

And that's what you get for that. If John claimed that Herod's affair made him unfit to govern, then that is a political statement and punishable as sedition.

It's not 100% sure that this linkage to Herod's affair was always made; it's not always made in other books of the period that deal with John, but it is certainly the sort of story that one can imagine being used as ammunition against a politician.

Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened,

C wanders off into hyperbole again - "All the people"? Really? Even the Irish? Obviously not, then do we mean "All the Jews"? Again, obviously not. So, who is "all"? It's just hype and tautology - "All the people who were baptists" had been baptised. Which could have been 30 or 300 or 3000. The earlier use of "multitude" is typical of C and rarely means more specific than "too many to fit into a room".

And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.

God is speaking to himself again, telling himself that he's really happy about his own progress so far, which is lucky because otherwise he might have had to have a good talking-to with himself.

Jesus is already filled with the Holy ghost, so is the dove a top-up?

And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

The chapter runs out with a list of people that Jesus is not related to, since his mother was a virgin. The "(as supposed)" tries to acknowledge this fact without actually dealing with it.

Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,

Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,

Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,

Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,

Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,

Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,

Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,

Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,

Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,

Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,

Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,

Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,

Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,

Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,

Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

The KJV use of the words "son of" in this list is not a literal translation - the text really says something more like "Enos of Seth of Adam of God". So we haven't made Adam into Jesus's third brother despite the English text. There are some well-known inconsistencies between this list, Matthew, and Genesis but they're pointless since we don't know which of these people Jesus is supposed to be related to via his mother. C's primary concern here is to work the numerologically important number 7 and its multiples into the generations of Jesus.

That's the end of chapter 3.

We've got to an interesting point in the story here in that C has openly dealt with the fact that some people said that Christ was not Jesus but John. He's papering over the cracks for all he's worth but the implication is that the existence of "Christ" preceded its identification with a specific person. Thus, when asked "who is Christ?" some people said "John", and some said "Judas", and some said....other things. And these people all would have called themselves "Christians" - no one ever referred to the members of the religion as Jesusians. The name comes from the title, not the man.

The fact that Christian sources are unanimous in placing John first is another interesting fact and suggestive, again, of the possibility that belief in Christ existed and was floating around before it was firmly attached to the person called Jesus of No Fixed Abode, Galilee. Previous messiahs had failed in the recent past and had been killed, like John. Someone eventually fixed on the idea that the messiah wouldn't be stopped by such an inconvenience - after all Hercules was seen knocking around after he died, and if pagan heroes can do it, so can Jewish ones, right. And so a legend was born.

Chapter 4 

The bulk of this chapter is more or less straight fiction. Even if Jesus existed, Satan doesn't and their conversation (just the two of them, no witnesses to record all this) is probably the work of C, who in Acts will go on to spout much longer supposedly verbatim speeches that he didn't hear as a matter of his routine operating procedure.

And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness,

Jordan wasn't exactly the middle of town, so Jesus is returning from the wilderness to be led into another wilderness. I think he might be lost.

Being forty days tempted of the devil. And in those days he did eat nothing: and when they were ended, he afterward hungered.

A conundrum - if Jesus is God how can he hunger? If he is human how can he survive in the wilderness for 40 days and then, apparently, walk back into town and not need help? If the Holy Ghost in him allows him to shrug off 40 days of starvation in the heat of the desert then in what sense is Jesus even able to suffer as a mortal, and what does that say about the supposed sacrifice later on? Theologians have had centuries to find arguments to counter these questions and, by and large, they were ineffectual enough that they had to resort to tying people to stakes and setting fire to them in order to make their point more effectively.

As ever, you can say anything you like about someone that didn't exist. For examples, read on:

And the devil said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, command this stone that it be made bread.

And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

Of the two things - bread and the word of God - which will you be able to solely survive on longest? Perhaps an interesting experiment for kids to try? But, in fact, the KJV version has failed us again. The Greek here is difficult (for me, anyway) but it has no reference to the word of anyone and the sentence should end at "alone".

And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.

The KJV slips up here, the Greek has only "took upwards". It's B who thinks the world is flat and says "mountain". By moving the language ever so slightly, C makes it poetically vague and avoids the stupid implication that B's text makes. C is generally a better educated person than B and repeatedly dances around problems with the latter's text, although his is by no means as perfect as claimed in the introduction. 

And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it.

If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine.

And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

Both of them seem to have forgotten that Jesus is supposed to be God. At the very least, he's supposed to be the son of God. Why would any of this be of interest to him? It's theological nonsense; plain folklore.

And he brought him to Jerusalem, and set him on a pinnacle of the temple, and said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down from hence:

For it is written, He shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee:

And in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.

Could we not have done this from the high place? However, going to the Temple to do it at least means there'll be lots of witnesses and everyone will know about it, won't they? Apparently not. C is again indulging in mythology of the plainest type, not caring a whit about whether this implies real-world consequences.

And Jesus answering said unto him, It is said, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

We were only talking about tempting angels, surely? Anyway, the correct answer is "It is not so written, you've mis-quoted and lose. Ha ha."

And when the devil had ended all the temptation, he departed from him for a season.

"Season" = "a while", not literally a season of the year. He'll be back, but this was his big scene. The NT isn't really clear on the whole question of devils and demons and where they come from; they're really an echo of a largely oral tradition of spirits and ghosties that people blamed for all sorts of stuff before the invention of the microscope and the germ theory of disease. Demons where supposed to be everywhere - a fear encouraged by monotheism which had to explain a lot of things that the Pagans didn't wory about so much. Because a single god means a single responsibility - you can't shift bad luck onto the backs of a quarrel between your local god and the god of rivers or whatever. So the bad stuff has to all be directed against your one god, and that begs the question of why he lets it happen, especially if he's all-powerful as Jehovah had gradually become in the eyes of some Jews and especially the Christians. These deep theological flaws in the monotheistic theory of Good and Evil plague Jews and Christian apologists to this very day, and always will as they represent an inherent contradiction in their worldview which can never be resolved so long as bad things happen to innocent people.

And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee: and there went out a fame of him through all the region round about.

And he taught in their synagogues, being glorified of all.

C's grand claims for Jesus's fame stack up very poorly compared to the historical record of the times where he makes no mark at all in his supposed lifetime or even the generation after. C's tendency is to always portray his subject, whether Jesus or Paul, as being an astounding success who impresses everyone he meets.

Well, all right, almost everyone:

And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.

And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,

To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.

And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.

And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.

And all bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth. And they said, Is not this Joseph's son?

And he said unto them, Ye will surely say unto me this proverb, Physician, heal thyself: whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum, do also here in thy country.

Why would Jesus expect them to say any of this? Is he sick? Has something interesting happened in Capernaum? Because, at this point, C hasn't told us anything about the place.

I suspect this part is a later insertion or simple editing cock-up. Whoever it was missed the continuity error of placing it before Jesus actually does anything in Capernaum. I might be giving C too much credit, but even in Acts he makes mistakes of realism, law, and probability but not simple ordering of events.

And he said, Verily I say unto you, No prophet is accepted in his own country.

But I tell you of a truth, many widows were in Israel in the days of Elias, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, when great famine was throughout all the land;

But unto none of them was Elias sent, save unto Sarepta, a city of Sidon, unto a woman that was a widow.

And many lepers were in Israel in the time of Eliseus the prophet; and none of them was cleansed, saving Naaman the Syrian.

The imagery is from Isaiah again and Esaias is just a different rendering of this name. C has Jesus telling the locals that God isn't going to send the messiah to them - he's going to heal the foreigners, and as previously mentioned "foreigners" is "the Gentiles". C is warming to his long-running goal of showing that God had abandoned the Jews, a story that places this text late in the proceedings and would have been shocking in the 30's A.D. But C isn't in the 30's, or even the 60's, and he's not a Jew so what does he care? It's a bit of a laugh for him to imagine all these slack-jawed Jews being offended at the news that God has finally given up on them.

C makes it seem as if God abandoning the Jews was a done deal, because in his time it was, as far as most Christians were concerned. In Jesus's time, of course, it would have seemed absurd to say so; why send the Christ to them, then? But that was half a century and more before Luke was written.

And all they in the synagogue, when they heard these things, were filled with wrath,

And rose up, and thrust him out of the city, and led him unto the brow of the hill whereon their city was built, that they might cast him down headlong.

Finally we reach the problem point with Nazareth being a tiny village - we're asked to believe not that the citizens of a "city" are going to kill Jesus, but that his friends and family are. There's probably only half a dozen families in the place at most; everyone knows everyone. If we pretend that this one-goat town really did have a synagogue then it gets worse as we know that Jesus has been spouting off since he was 12, so they'll absolutely all have heard his views long before now. C's already told us that Jesus knows his stuff, so it's not a case of coming back from being Baptized and singing a new tune.

Maybe Jesus was just a big pain in the arse and they'd had enough! Or maybe C wants to paint the Jews as being so bad that they'd kill the one person that they had all been waiting for, even though he was a person they'd known for 30 years or more. Most likely, however, he just doesn't know how small Nazareth would have been; it's just a name on a map to him. 

But he passing through the midst of them went his way,

It's easy to miss, but this is the first miracle in the book.

And came down to Capernaum, a city of Galilee, and taught them on the sabbath days.

Now we're in Capernaum for the first time.

And they were astonished at his doctrine: for his word was with power.

And in the synagogue there was a man, which had a spirit of an unclean devil, and cried out with a loud voice,

Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art; the Holy One of God.

The demon wants to know what Jesus is going to do. A reasonable question, since God not only created the demon but has allowed it to play merry hell on Earth for, well, ever, I suppose. This introduces the first of a long and tedious list of faith-healing events which get more and more outrageous as C reaches for bigger and wider words for how many people have been cured of everything up to and including being dead (which is normally fatal). 

And Jesus rebuked him, saying, Hold thy peace, and come out of him. And when the devil had thrown him in the midst, he came out of him, and hurt him not.

And they were all amazed, and spake among themselves, saying, What a word is this! for with authority and power he commandeth the unclean spirits, and they come out.

And the fame of him went out into every place of the country round about.

And he arose out of the synagogue, and entered into Simon's house. And Simon's wife's mother was taken with a great fever; and they besought him for her.

And he stood over her, and rebuked the fever; and it left her: and immediately she arose and ministered unto them.

Now when the sun was setting, all they that had any sick with divers diseases brought them unto him; and he laid his hands on every one of them, and healed them.

And devils also came out of many, crying out, and saying, Thou art Christ the Son of God. And he rebuking them suffered them not to speak: for they knew that he was Christ.

And when it was day, he departed and went into a desert place: and the people sought him, and came unto him, and stayed him, that he should not depart from them.

And he said unto them, I must preach the kingdom of God to other cities also: for therefore am I sent.

And he preached in the synagogues of Galilee.

Thus ends chapter 4. John's in prison, Jesus is healing everyone and the news is spreading, although quietly, so as to not disturb any passing chroniclers who aren't already believers. Next time, Jesus starts collecting his henchmen and discusses the pros and cons of repairing your own clothes.