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?

Luke Chapter 7: Repeat After Me—John Is Not The Bloody Messiah

In chapter 7, yet again, C gets distracted by John the Baptist, while the KJV translators come over a bit shy about some of the realities of 1st century Judea that Jesus doesn't seem terribly interested in.

Chapter 7

Now when he had ended all his sayings in the audience of the people, he entered into Capernaum.

Returned to Capernaum, surely? You can really see the joins all the way through this chapter.

And a certain centurion's servant, who was dear unto him, was sick, and ready to die.

Stop right there! I wanna know right now—do you mean "servant" or do you mean, perhaps, "slave"? For indeed, the word in Greek is "slave". There are Greek words for servant, but those are not what appears here. Let's press on, but mentally replace "servant" with "slave" in the following passages:

And when he heard of Jesus, he sent unto him the elders of the Jews, beseeching him that he would come and heal his servant.

And when they came to Jesus, they besought him instantly, saying, That he was worthy for whom he should do this: 

For he loveth our nation, and he hath built us a synagogue. 

So, those pesky Jews, the elders no less, have come to as Jesus for help, eh? Well, after all the trouble they've caused him, Jesus is obviously going to tell them where to go, isn't he? He's not going to help these "vipers" curry favour with the oppressors of Israel, is he?

Then Jesus went with them.

Oh.

And when he was now not far from the house, the centurion sent friends to him, saying unto him, Lord, trouble not thyself: for I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter under my roof: 

Wherefore neither thought I myself worthy to come unto thee: but say in a word, and my servant shall be healed. 

For I also am a man set under authority, having under me soldiers, and I say unto one, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it. 

When Jesus heard these things, he marvelled at him, and turned him about, and said unto the people that followed him, I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel. 

And they that were sent, returning to the house, found the servant whole that had been sick. 

It's always dangerous to read too much into Bible stories. It's tempting to see the centurion as representing Rome in general, just as the elders represent Israel. Insofar that the miracle never happened, it's easy to read this as a parable of sorts. But it may simply be yet another miracle story, one among many.

But to the meat of the problem: Jesus says nothing about slavery here. It's probable that the translators of the KJV were embarrassed about this and so chose to use the word "servant"; they were capable of using the word "slave" in other parts of the Bible. In the 16th and 17th centuries, servitude was, to be sure, a thing hardly distinguished from slavery to modern eyes, but there was a psychological and legal bar to slavery on English soil due to technical readings of Magna Carta (800 years old today as I write this, as it happens), which was a document to bind the actions of a (very bad) atheist king, so there's your British irony for you. To have Jesus turn a blind eye to slavery was probably more than they could countenance. So "slave" became "servant". That leaves us with the issue of why Jesus says nothing. The simple reason is that the author of this story simply assumed slavery as part of normal life. Far from the character of Jesus being a revolutionary moral teacher, he is in fact very conservative when it comes to morals and reserves almost all his big speeches for doctrinal or theological points of limited moral importance. He certainly addresses unfairness but he doesn't really get worked up about it like he does about selling gewgaws in the Temple.

The whole story is another reminder that C is a good Greco-Roman. Rome feared slave revolts above all things, and speaking out against slavery would have been unthinkable for an educated upper-middle-class writer like C who almost certainly had slaves of his own; at the least it would have been a death-sentence. So the centurion is a paragon of faith and his rule over his slaves and soldiers held up as a model of good behaviour. This Christian blindspot would persist for a very long time in the mainstream and find its crowning moment in the greatest of all hypocritical writings - the American Declaration of Independence with its opening lines "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"—written by a slave owner who exploited his slaves for sexual gratification. But, since his "Creator" hadn't bothered to say anything against the practice, obviously it was okay, right? 

And it came to pass the day after, that he went into a city called Nain; and many of his disciples went with him, and much people. 

Nain is a tiny spot of a village. The Greek word here is "polis", which does denote a more substantial settlement, usually with walls - which is backed up in the next verse's reference to gates. No trace of walls or anything resembling a city has ever been found in the village which the notorious fraudster Eusebius picked as the site of this.

Now when he came nigh to the gate of the city, behold, there was a dead man carried out, the only son of his mother, and she was a widow: and much people of the city was with her. 

Presumably that means both of them.

And when the Lord saw her, he had compassion on her, and said unto her, Weep not. 

And he came and touched the bier: and they that bare him stood still. And he said, Young man, I say unto thee, Arise. 

And he that was dead sat up, and began to speak. And he delivered him to his mother. 

And there came a fear on all: and they glorified God, saying, That a great prophet is risen up among us; and, That God hath visited his people. 

Well, no he didn't. He wasn't visiting, he was passing by and just took pity on the old woman (not the son). The widow just got lucky. There's no moral lesson here except that Jesus is a bit soft if you're crying but otherwise doesn't head off on his own bat to flush out the local cemeteries to restore other widows' dead children to them.

And this rumour of him went forth throughout all Judaea, and throughout all the region round about. 

And the disciples of John shewed him of all these things. 

Another jump-cut and we're back with John the Baptist who, last we heard, was in prison. But apparently not only receiving visitors but allowed to request them. This is a characteristic device of C's and one he will use over and over again when he writes the sequel to Luke: Acts of the Apostles, wherein a succession of jailers, guards, and even governors will show a laxity in dealing with prisoners which is simply laughable. C seems to have led a very sheltered life.

And John calling unto him two of his disciples sent them to Jesus, saying, Art thou he that should come? or look we for another? 

When the men were come unto him, they said, John Baptist hath sent us unto thee, saying, Art thou he that should come? or look we for another? 

It's generally thought that chapter 7 was written well before chapter 1. Otherwise John is breathlessly asking this of the person he acknowledged as his successor while still in the womb. According to chapter 1, John has grown up in parallel with his cousin/brother Jesus and should presumably know exactly who he is.

And in that same hour he cured many of their infirmities and plagues, and of evil spirits; and unto many that were blind he gave sight. 

A simple "yes" would have done.

Then Jesus answering said unto them, Go your way, and tell John what things ye have seen and heard; how that the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, to the poor the gospel is preached. 

C is really saying "John didn't do all these amazing things" and he's saying it to the followers of John Christ who were travelling around the Med in his day. He'll come back to it yet again in Acts.

And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me. 

And when the messengers of John were departed, he began to speak unto the people concerning John, What went ye out into the wilderness for to see? A reed shaken with the wind?

What the hell does this mean? I've no idea. "A reed shaken with the wind" is just a version of "whichever way the wind blows" but what C is trying to do by connecting that with John is beyond me. Although it seems insulting it also seems ironic so I'm not sure. It seems significant that the words are spoken behind the backs of John's disciples, after they leave.

But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment? Behold, they which are gorgeously apparelled, and live delicately, are in kings' courts. 

But what went ye out for to see? A prophet? Yea, I say unto you, and much more than a prophet. 

This is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.

Jesus is just lying here; it was not so written. The quote in question refers to the messiah himself, not to a herald of the messiah. In other words, in the original text (in Malachi) "I" is Jehovah and "my messenger" is the messiah - supposedly Jesus in C's version. The words put into Jesus's mouth are a deliberate distortion of scripture. The problem for C is that the Malachi text would make John the Messiah, not Jesus and it's probably the case that John's followers were quoting it for exactly that purpose and C was looking for a way to turn their claim aside.

For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist: but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.

More stitching by anti-Johnites. How can John the Baptist not be in the kingdom of God? Does that mean he's greater than himself? Also: Jesus was born of a woman, this might be a careless lift from a previous theology where Jesus was a spiritual being (to be blunt: from the theology of "Paul").

And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John. 

But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him. 

Here, C flatly contradicts A's account in "Matthew". Putting that aside, C is claiming that "all" the people except the pharisees and lawyers have been baptised. Which seems unlikely.

And the Lord said, Whereunto then shall I liken the men of this generation? and to what are they like? 

They are like unto children sitting in the marketplace, and calling one to another, and saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned to you, and ye have not wept. 

For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine; and ye say, He hath a devil. 

The Son of man is come eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners! 

That's people for you; never happy.

But wisdom is justified of all her children. 

This line introduces a somewhat mystical allegory. Wisdom in very ancient Jewish lore (i.e., before the Jews were monotheistic) was a female deity who, in legend, came down to Earth for the benefit of mankind but was spurned and abused. Sound familiar at all? In that light, the following lines have a much more mythical tone. Proverbs 7 and 8 are worth reading before continuing, for some strange contrasts and similarities. 

And one of the Pharisees desired him that he would eat with him. And he went into the Pharisee's house, and sat down to meat.

Another patch in C's quilt where the Pharisees are not all bad guys.

And, behold, a woman in the city, which was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at meat in the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster box of ointment, 

And stood at his feet behind him weeping, and began to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment. 

Read that again carefully. Perhaps Jesus's feet are attached to the back of his head?

Now when the Pharisee which had bidden him saw it, he spake within himself, saying, This man, if he were a prophet, would have known who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him: for she is a sinner. 

And Jesus answering said unto him, Simon, I have somewhat to say unto thee. And he saith, Master, say on. 

There was a certain creditor which had two debtors: the one owed five hundred pence, and the other fifty. 

And when they had nothing to pay, he frankly forgave them both. Tell me therefore, which of them will love him most? 

Simon answered and said, I suppose that he, to whom he forgave most. And he said unto him, Thou hast rightly judged. 

And he turned to the woman, and said unto Simon, Seest thou this woman? I entered into thine house, thou gavest me no water for my feet: but she hath washed my feet with tears, and wiped them with the hairs of her head. 

Thou gavest me no kiss: but this woman since the time I came in hath not ceased to kiss my feet. 

My head with oil thou didst not anoint: but this woman hath anointed my feet with ointment. 

Remember: "Messiah" means "the anointed one". There's hardly a word of this that sounds likely, is there? It's more like a dream. In real life, the woman would be pretty annoying while you're trying to eat. Why did Simon even let her in? Because it's just a story.

Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little. 

Jesus is now talking bollocks.

And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven. 

And they that sat at meat with him began to say within themselves, Who is this that forgiveth sins also? 

And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.

So, was it faith or love that absolved the woman?

Well, that's chapter 7. In chapter 8 Jesus will reveal an ignorance of the world which would take on a horrific irony 1400 years later as 10 million slaves were worked to death by Christians frantic to attain wealth and power. But it's okay, because they confessed their sins every Sunday and Jesus forgave them because they had faith and/or loved him.