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?