Archive for the ‘Biblical Expositions’ Category

One of the more intriguing stories that Mark preserves is that of an unnamed woman who anoints Jesus’ head with an alabaster flask of perfumed oil of pure nard, a fragrant Near Eastern plant, a few days before his death (Mark 14:1-9). The scene takes place at Bethany, a small village on the east slope of the Mt. of Olives. Jesus and his disciples stayed in this village the last week of his life, making it their “base of operations” for the decisive events of that led up to Passover (Mark 11:11-12). Based on John’s account it seems likely that they are staying in the home of the sisters Martha and Mary and their brother Lazarus, a Jerusalem family with whom Jesus was very close (John 11:1-5; Luke 10:38-42). The scene of the anointing took place in the house of one “Simon the leper,” who also lived in Bethany, according to Mark, but John explains that the sisters Mary and Martha served, and that their brother Lazarus was one of those at table with them (Mark 14:3; John 12:1-8). Mark never mentions the sisters Martha and Mary and their brother Lazarus anywhere in his gospel. Even though some of the details of the accounts in Mark and John differ, it is certain that they are narrating the same event and my sense is that John has an independent tradition from that of Mark. As far as the anointing story goes, Matthew essentially follows Mark and seems to have nothing independently.

I think it is important to read Mark and John side by side, as two independent traditions. Even if John knows Mark, which I take as likely, his version of the story is more than a “retelling” of the story using Mark as a source. He seems to draw upon sources unavailable to Mark. John clearly names the woman as Mary, stating she is the sister of Martha and Lazarus (John 11:2; 12:3). Mark and John both note that the pure oil of nard was very costly, worth 300 denarii, which would be months of wages for a common laborer. John does not mention the oil poured on Jesus’ head but on his feet, and he adds the detail of Mary then wiping his feet with her hair, which surely seems to be an intimate act of devotion. When some at the table object (Judas Iscariot according to John) that such a costly flask of oil should be sold and given to the poor, Jesus rebukes them with his famous statement “The poor you always have with you” which both Mark and John know. The theological irony in this double tradition, even with its differences, is that Jesus the “Christ,” or Anointed One, is anointed by a woman, and that this anointing is in connection with his burial. In other words, for both Mark and John, Jesus is the “dead messiah,” triumphant only through resurrection of the dead. But if we read behind the theology we seem to have access to a tradition that remembers a specific event–namely that Jesus was anointed by a woman named Mary at Bethany.

Mark and John differ in a crucial way when Jesus characterizes this act of anointing. In Mark he says the woman has “anointed his body beforehand for burial,” but in John he says, rather than sell the ointment it should be kept to be used for “the day of his burial” (John 12:7). Yet John has no account of Mary or any of the women preparing to anoint Jesus’ body for burial. Instead he says that Joseph of Arimathea, assisted by Nicodemus, carried out these rites based on Jewish customs (John 19:40). But Mark notes explicitly that Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses (whom I take to be Jesus’ mother, see above), and Salome, bought spices so that they might go and anoint him once the Sabbath was past (Mark 16:1).

Sorting out the roles of these two Marys, Mary Magdalene and Mary the sister of Martha, in the final days of Jesus’ life is difficult. Mark never mentions the sisters Mary and Martha and he gives no name for the woman who anoints Jesus. John mentions the sisters, has Mary anointing Jesus at Bethany, but does not have them either at the cross or the intended anointing at the tomb, which seems odd given their close and intimate relationship to Jesus. Both Mark and John first mention Mary Magdalene at the crucifixion, and they agree that Mary Magdalene visits the tomb of Jesus early Sunday morning, but Mark writes that she came with the Jesus’ mother and Salome, while John has her come alone. If the unnamed woman who anointed Jesus in Mark was in fact Mary Magdalene, her faithfulness at the cross and intimacy at the burial seems appropriate. On the other hand, if this woman was Mary, sister of Martha, as John says explicitly, why is she not involved in the final crucifixion and tomb scenes? After all, John’s account, with the wiping of the feet with her hair, seems even more intimate than Mark’s anointing of the head. One can either accept each account at face value and deal with the tensions and differences, or look for solutions that account for both, but might be nearer the historical situation as we can construct it.

Luke drops Mark’s anointing at Bethany story entirely, but he narrates a strikingly similar story, set in Galilee, much earlier in Jesus’ career, where an unnamed woman, who is a “sinner” anoints Jesus’ feet with an ointment, wets them with her tears, kisses, them, and dries them with her hair (Luke 7:36-50). This story seems juxtaposed purposely with his introduction of Mary Magdalene into his narrative, where he alone, of all the gospels, says she had been exorcised of seven demons (Luke 8:2). One is tempted to conclude that Luke understands the woman in the Bethany anointing to be none other than Mary Magdalene, and that he is uncomfortable with the intimate and positive role she is given in that scene. Luke also removes the explicit names of the women at the cross and burial of Jesus, including Mary Magdalene, referring generically to “the women who had followed him from Galilee” (Luke 23:49, 55). Luke’s editing of Mark in this regard paves the way for the negative image of Mary Magdalene as a sexually loose and deranged woman that became so pervasive in later Christian tradition, particularly as promulgated by Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, and of course Pope Gregory the Great (late 6th century). It became common to identify Mary Magdalene with the sister of Martha as well as the “sinful” woman in Luke’s anointing story.

I am convinced that this denigration of Mary Magdalene, evidenced so explicitly by Luke, is also behind John’s assertion that it was Mary of Bethany, sister of Lazarus and Martha, who anointed Jesus before his death. They both know the name of the woman who was commended for this act was named “Mary” and I am convinced both of them are aware of a tradition that she was none other than Mary Magdalene. Mark says the scene took place in Bethany in the house of “Simon the leper” but John does not mention that, implying it might well have been in the home of Lazarus and the sisters. Luke is content to let that stand, but leaves the implication that she is a deranged sinner. John knows a tradition that heightens the intimacy of the scene, as well as connects this “Mary” to a subsequent anointing of Jesus’ body for burial. To have Mary Magdalene involved in both of these acts is problematic for him, or at least for the final editors of this gospel. He is so eager to identify the anointing “Mary” as the sister of Martha that he even mentions the scene in the past tense before it happens! (John 11:2). I think this is a real clue as to what is going on at some stage of the editing of John. John’s tradition includes the striking scene between Jesus and Mary Magdalene at the tomb (20:11-18), but if she is also the woman who touches Jesus’ feet with her hair and is involved in anointing his body for burial, her position of prominance and intimacy would just be too great. Both are acts that involve “nakedness,” that of a woman’s hair and the preparation of a corpse for burial.

John and Luke were written at a time when the male apostles, namely Peter and Paul are being invested with great authority. Although Mary Magdalene was remembered and honored in certain circles, as witnessed by other texts outside the New Testament, her place in our canonical gospels is explicitly muted. I think a critical reading of Mark and John gives us some glimmer of what might have been going on and by reading the texts side by side we can perhaps rehabilitate Mary’s Memorial.

In Mark 6:3 the brothers of Jesus are named as James, Joses, Judas, and Simon and his sisters are mentioned but not named.
Matthew changes this to read: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas (Matthew 13:55). Luke, true to his desire to marginalize James and the brothers of Jesus in favor of Peter and Paul, drops the reference to the brothers and sisters entirely (Luke 4:22). One must keep in mind here, and with all these examples, that Matthew and Luke have Mark before him, so these changes are deliberate and for a purpose, not passing and of no consequence. Matthew loses the “nickname” Joses, of Jesus’ second brother, and changes it to the more formal name: Joseph. He also moves Simon ahead of Judas in the order. I think Mark is listing the brothers in order of birth, as would be the standard practice, but Matthew wants to put Simon before Judas, since he took over leadership of the group after the death of James (I take “Simon bar Clophas” as a brother, not cousin of Jesus).

The form of the name Joses or Jose (Yose in Hebrew) is a very important detail that Mark preserves for us. He mentions him again in 15:40 and 47, as the son of Mary and brother of “James the Kid” (my translation of James the “younger”). He also mentions here and in 16:1, Salome, very likely one of Jesus’ sisters, involved with his mother and Mary Magdalene in the rites of burial for Jesus’ body. This second brother of Jesus, known by this nickname Yose, is preserved in a few manuscripts of Matthew 27:56, but by and large, without Mark, we would have lost it. This second brother of Jesus is a kind of “mystery” when it comes to the Jesus family. James we know, as he took over leadership of the group after Jesus death in 30 CE until is own murder in 62 CE. Simon then assumed leadership. We also have letters from James and Jude in the N.T. But other than these precious references in Mark, Yose has disappeared from history. It is very likely that he died before 62 CE, when James was killed, or he would have taken the lead before Simon, but we know nothing of the circumstances.

John never names the brothers of Jesus but he does refer to Mary, the mother of James and Joses, mentioned in Mark, as the “wife of Clophas.” I have argued in The Jesus Dynasty that this is Jesus’ mother, not “Mary a sister of Mary,” and that after Joseph’s death she married his brother, Clophas (also known elsewhere as Alphaeus). In fact, Mark also knows a “James son of Alphaeus,” his brother Jude, and a Matthew/Levi, son of Alphaeus (Mark 2:14; 3:18), all part of Jesus’ council of Twelve. I am convinced they are half-brothers of Jesus, and once again, it is Mark who knows these sorts of details.

I have also speculated that in John the “disciple whom Jesus loves” is in fact, James, his “kid” brother, who lays on his breast at the last supper, and into whose hand he delivers the care of their mother at his death (John 19:25-27). This mysterious figure, introduced only at the Last Supper (13:23), and mentioned in the last chapters of John, that depend on the eyewitness testimony of this disciple, is never referred to by name (19:26; 19:35; 20:2; 21:7, 20-24). It makes no sense to think, as tradition holds, that he is John son of Zebedee, since Jesus surely would not turn over the care of his mother to this “Son of Thunder” whom he often rebukes for his lack of humility and compassion, and who, according to Mark, fled from the scene of the cross (Mark 10:35; Luke 9:54; Mark 14:50).

Mark gives no birth story whatsoever but when Jesus returns to Nazareth, where he grew up, he is called “the son of Mary,” implying something irregular about his birth (Mark 6:3). In Judaism children are always identified as “son of” the father, not the mother. Joseph, who became the husband of Mary, and legal father of Jesus, is nowhere even mentioned in Mark. Matthew, in editing this passage in Mark changes it to read “Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary?” (Matthew 13:55). Luke drops the reference entirely to Mary and has “Is this not Joseph’s son” (Luke 4:22). Of course both Matthew and Luke contain birth narratives in which Mary’s pregnancy is noted, but also her marriage to Joseph. This, I think, is a very good example of the way in which Mark preserves a valuable and early tradition in which Jesus is known simply as “son of Mary.” John seems to know something of this “illegitimacy” tradition as well. He also lacks any birth story and he never offers us any narrative material about the husband Joseph. At one point Jesus’ opponents seem to challenge him with the implicity charge that his birth was irregular–”We were not born of fornication” (John 8:41). This “illegitimacy” motive can be traced into other later texts, as Jane Schaberg has shown in her enlightening work, The Illegitimacy of Jesus.

Note: This original post is becoming so long I have decided to break it into topics.

Most critical biblical scholars are in agreement that Mark is our earliest gospel and John is the latest. What follows then, in terms of Matthew and Luke, which come in between, is that they are using Mark as their basic narrative source–thus the three of them, Mark, Matthew, and Luke, are called the Synoptic gospels. In other words, Matthew and Luke are “secondary” sources when they are following Mark, in that they, by and large, are recasting or interpreting Mark as their base text. This is not to say that Matthew and Luke have nothing to add to the historical Jesus tradition. Indeed they do. First, they both preserve, in two versions, another source, the one scholars call Q, which most are convinced is earlier than Mark. Second, even in their “redaction” or editing of Mark as a primary source, they sometimes bring in materials that are judged useful to the critical historian.

John, in contrast, is not part of this editorial process and stands as a mostly independent witness to the Jesus tradition with an approach that seems in sharp contrast to Mark (or the Synoptics more generally). His stories are different, his chronology is different, and Jesus in John’s tradition speaks with a different vocabulary and subject matter, and he is viewed much more explicitly as a preexistent, heavenly, divine, Son of God. One might assume then, and many historians have taken just this approach, that John is of little value in reconstructing a critical historical view of Jesus.

I think this is a real mistake. In fact, I am among a growing group of scholars who are convinced that John in fact preserves a level of primitive tradition that Mark knows little about, and that without John’s contribution our knowledge of the historical Jesus would be severely limited. Also, it is demonstrably false to assume that Mark is somehow free of theology and is writing history. In fact, Mark is every bit as “theological” as John, and I am thoroughly convinced that he shares a view of Jesus that is highly influenced by Paul. So what is the historian, interested more in Jesus as a historical figure, to make of these different sources?

My own method and approach is to use Mark and John together to construct what I think is a coherent and plausible portrait of Jesus as apocalyptic messiah and proclaimer of the Kingdom of God, set in the context of the Baptist movement in 1st century Roman Palestine. I am further convinced that John likely knows Mark and is at times offering his own take on Mark’s presentation of Jesus, which he sees as supplementary rather than contradictory.

In a series of posts I want to offer an analysis of how a critical reading of Mark, the earliest gospel source, and John, the latest, that add substantially to our understanding of the historical Jesus.

During my entire academic career stretching now over 30 years I have consistently taken the position that there is no historical evidence that Jesus was married or had children. As I put things recently in the Preface to my book, The Jesus Dynasty:

“The Jesus Dynasty has no connection to the recently popularized notions that Jesus married and fathered children through Mary Magdalene. While gripping fiction, this idea is long on speculation and short on evidence.”

I was, of course, referring to the notions made popular by the 1982 book by Michael Baigent, Holy Blood, Holy Grail, and more recently by the runaway blockbuster bestseller, The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown. There have also been a few scholars, influenced by some of the later gospel traditions (particularly the Gospel of Mary and the Gospel of Philip), who have argued that Jesus’ relationship with Mary Magdalene included some type of sexual intimacy if not marriage. William E. Phipps published a full-scale study in 1970 titled, Was Jesus Married? The Distortion of Sexuality in the Christian Tradition (New York: Harper & Row). Phipps argued that Jesus’ status as a Jewish male, a teacher, and a rabbi, would have virtually required that he be married. I have never found these arguments from silence convincing, knowing that there were forms of Judaism, at least according to Josephus and Philo, that honored celibacy, and that Paul himself mounts a strong argument in defense thereof, even as a Jewish male and “rabbi.” I found the treatment summarized by Birger A. Pearson, “Did Jesus Marry?” (Bible Review Spring 2005, pp 32-39 & 47) to be quite convincing.

The Talpiot tomb has caused me to take another look at the evidence, since indeed, the “Jesus son of Joseph” of this tomb appears to have a son, “Judah son of Jesus,” and presumably a wife, perhaps the one known as Mariamene Mara. And yet, in looking at our New Testament texts, they appear to be devoid of any reference to such an idea. I have been wondering if there might be anything in these records that I might have missed.

Just recently I noticed something that others have perhaps noticed that I had overlooked all these years. I consider it very strong evidence indeed that Jesus was in fact married, and if married, the possibility that he had a child or children is quite plausible as well.

The seven early/authentic letters of Paul are our earliest direct and unedited witness to the early Jesus movement (1 Thessalonians, Galatians, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Romans, Phillipians, Philemon). Although Paul seldom tells us anything about the life, career, or teachings of Jesus, other than his theological treatment of his death on the cross and resurrection from the dead, he is surely in touch with Peter, James the brother of Jesus, as well as others who knew Jesus intimately in his lifetime.

On the matter of marriage Paul explicitly mentions that Cephas (Peter), the other apostles, as well as the “brothers of the Lord,” are accompanied on their travels by their wives, so that not only their expenses are carried by the community but those of their wives as well (1 Corinthians 9:5). One might assume those who made up Jesus’ council of Twelve, as well as Jesus’ brothers, would likely be married with children, but other than Peter’s unnamed “mother-in-law” being mentioned in Mark 1:30, no wives are ever mentioned much less identified by name. One might conclude, incorrectly, it seems, that the “silence” of the gospels regarding wives for the apostles and brothers of Jesus indicates they were living celibate or single lives. We have to accept that the gospels, as theological treatises, simply do not supply us with such details, particularly when it comes to women or children. They are simply not considered important to the story, but it does not mean they did not exist.

Earlier in this same letter Paul had mounted a vigorous defense of celibacy or remaining “unmarried.” Although he does not require it of his followers, he asserts that he lives the single non-sexual life and he strongly recommends it as the most practical as well as the most spiritually devoted lifestyle. He writes, in this regard, “I wish that all were as I myself am,” and “To the unmarried and the widows, I say it is well for them to remain single as I do” (1 Corinthians 7:7-8).

In this section of the letter Paul takes up a number of related topics, particularly whether divorce/separation is allowed and under what circumstances, but he is quite careful to explicitly state whether he has specific sanction from “the Lord.” It is quite important to him to bring in the authority and teaching of Jesus when he can to back up and lend weight to what he is saying.

I think one can conclude that if Paul had known Jesus to have been single or unmarried, living a celibate life, he would have mentioned it prominently. In fact it would have been one of his main points. It would have been irresistible. He mounts every possible defense of celibacy, but in the end is only able to appeal to his own example. Imagine how much more rigorously he could have argued had he been able to say, “follow me here, as I follow Christ.” In this particular case I think his silence is “deafening.” As with Cephas, the other apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, he knows that having a wife as a companion is the norm and pattern in the group. Paul must have known that Jesus was married, and he, as our earliest witness, would surely have been in a position to know. When he can use the teachings of Jesus or the example of Jesus he does. Here is an obvious example where he can not.

Our earliest testimony to the death and burial of Jesus comes from a letter of Paul to his followers at Corinth in the early 50s CE. He passes on a tradition that he had received, namely “that Christ died…that he was buried…that he was raised on the third day…that he was seen…” (1 Cor 15:3-5). Leaving aside the matter of the nature of these “sightings” of Jesus, including Paul’s own claim in that regard years after the crucifixion, it is significant that Paul writes that Jesus was buried. Burial implies a tomb, of whatever type, and he clearly intends the phrase “raised on the third day” to imply that that tomb was empty. In that regard I have to agree with evangelical apologists that Paul knows an “empty tomb” tradition. I cannot see how his language can make any sense otherwise.

Read the rest of this entry »

In our New Testament gospels there are four women named Mary who are closely associated with Jesus:

• His mother, first and foremost, who raised him and a large family of four other boys and at least two girls (Mark 6:30
• Tradition has it that the names of his two sisters were Mary and Salome (Mark 6:3; 16:1; Epiphanius, Pan. 78.8,1 & 78.9, 6)
• Mary of Bethany, the sister of Martha and Lazarus (Luke 10:38-42; John 11:1-5; 12:1-3; Mark 11:11-12)
• Mary Magdalene (Luke 8:1-3; Mark 15:40, 47; 16:1; Matt 28:1-10; John 20:1-18)

Three of these Marys, in particular, are singled out in early Christian traditions as having “always walked with him.” As the Gospel of Philip puts it, “His sister and his mother and his companion were each a Mary” (59, 12). Mary, is the English form of the Hebrew Miriam, the name of the sister of Moses and Aaron (Exo 15:20). It comes down to us in several forms in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek: Mariam, Maria, Mariame, Mariamne; but in English the name is commonly rendered simply “Mary.” If one tabulates all the references to Jewish names of women from archaeological and literary sources from Palestine in late antiquity (Tal Ilan’s Lexicon), the name Mary occurs 70 times of the 320 total examples of female names. That means we can estimate that approximately 21% of Jewish women were named Mary. This popularity might have to do with Miriam the sister of Moses, but it also has been traced to the women in the Hashmonean or Maccabean line who favored this name. It seems that names of the Maccabees, both male and female, were extraordinarily popular in late 2nd Temple Palestinian Judaism, perhaps for patriotic reasons.

As far as these Marys, we know precious little about any of them, and whether historian or devotee of Jesus, we wish we knew much more. Mary Magdalene, first witness to Jesus’ resurrection according to Matthew and John, is perhaps the most intriguing, both to scholars and the public alike. A Google search for “Mary Magdalene” yields over a million and a half “hits.” An Amazon search registers over 15,000 books that are in some way related to her. The titles say a lot:

The Secret Magdalene; The Crucifixion of Mary Magdalene; The Magdalene Legacy; Secrets of Mary Magdalene: The Unfold Story; Searching for Mary Magdalene; The Magdalene Code; De-coding Mary Magdalene; Unveiling Mary Magdalene; The Complete Idiots Guide to Mary Magdalene; The Everything Mary Magdalene Book; Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene, and so on.*

The Wikipedia entry, Mary Magdalene, provides a good overview to what might be called the “Mary Magdalene” craze. Dan Brown’s novel, The Davinci Code (and the subsequent film) has now spread a version of the popular fascination with Mary Magdalene around the globe in every marketable language.

No one could possibly keep up with the popular phenomenon and even getting a hold on the more academic and scholarly treatments of Mary Magdalene is a daunting task. So where does one even begin?

Read the rest of this entry »

Bruce Fisk has posted a thoughtful treatment of the view of Paul and other early Christians on the “physicality” of the notion of resurrection of the dead by Robert Gundry. Prof. Gundry focuses on the the issue of the resurrection of Jesus in particular, but then extends his analysis to cover Paul’s more general notion of the resurrection of those “dead in Christ” when he returns from heaven. Gundry offers a critical evaluation of my views as published in The Jesus Dynasty as well as here on my Blog. I appreciate the input and the respectful consideration and I want to take up some of the issues he raises in subsequent posts on this Blog.

I am in the process of writing a book on Paul (working title: The Paul Dynasty: A New Historical Invesigation of Paul’s Program of World Transformation) that will offer a sustained interpretation of Paul’s career, mission, and message, the outlines of which I hinted at in chapter 16 of The Jesus Dynasty, and the foundation of which I published in Things Unutterable (1986).

The issues that Prof. Gundry highlights relate directly to the notion of finding a Jesus Family tomb, including an ossuary with the bones of Jesus of Nazareth, and what that might say about the development of early Christian views of Jesus and the Messianic Kingdom that he intended to inaugurate. So much of this depends on how we can reconstruct the days and weeks following the death of Jesus. The amalgamated accounts of Luke and John, both of which stress “physical” (or quasi-physical) appearances of Jesus in Jerusalem to his disciples over a period of weeks following that fateful Passover, have become the unconscious master “Easter narrative” in our heads, much like conflated versions of the Christmas Story. Backing off a bit, and sorting things out, is difficult, but it can be done, if one gives careful attention to our sources, particularly Mark and Q, but also the development of the “resurrection” story in Matthew as well, as a backdrop to what we find in Paul.

Read the rest of this entry »

The term “Christkillers” is an ugly one as it is used today, and as it has been used for centuries by those who hate Jews. It has become a central justification for this special kind of Christian anti-semitic thinking. But one has to ask, what is the origin of the term and the idea, that is that the Jews are guilty of “killing Christ,” or, as it is sometimes put, of “Deicide,” that is “killing God”?

As far as I can determine the first mention of this idea as a blanket charge against “the Jews” comes from Paul’s earliest preserved letter, written to his followers living in the Greek town of Salonica or Thessalonica around the year AD 50. He writes:

“…the Jews who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out, and displease God and oppose all men by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles that they may be save–so as always to fill up the measure of their sins. But God’s wrath has come upon them at last!” (1 Thess 2:15-16).

What makes this passage important in terms of the development of Christianity is that it breaks new ground by laying a blanket charge that it was “the Jews” who killed Jesus, who displease God, and who oppose humankind. The strong vituperative language that Paul uses here is not really what makes the passage important in terms of the history of Christian anti-semitism. Actually, various Jewish groups (Essenes against Pharisees, Pharisees against Sadducees, Nazarenes against Pharisees) often use very ugly language in castigating their fellow Jews for their beliefs, practices or perceived moral failures. It is neither the language nor the vindictive spirit (You are going to hell and I am glad of it!) that marks Paul’s outburst here as exceptional. What stands out is that he addresses his condemnation against Jews as a whole, even though he himself was a Jew. In other words it was “the Jews” who are guilty of all these things and will be soon and rightly punished. It is a small step from this sort of thinking and the decision to take a bit of this justly deserved punishment of the “Jews” into one’s own hands.

But there is another fateful passage in the New Testament that pretty much “seals the deal” on this whole blanket “Christkiller” charge. It is found only in Matthew’s gospel and scholars are convinced it is an expression of author’s own sentiments, which are very similar to Paul’s, rather than any accurate record of history. The scene is at the trial of Jesus when the Roman governor Pontius Pilate delivers Jesus over to be executed by crucifixion. According to Matthew:

“And all the people answered, ‘His blood be on us and on our children’” (Matthew 27:25).

With these chilling words 1900 years of Christian persecution against the Jews was both launched and justified. After all, had not the Jewish people asked for this? Had they not freely taken upon themselves the label “Christkillers,” so that any fate suffered by the Jews, however inflicted, was in the end well deserved?

Today to most of us I think these ideas sound utterly repugnant and shocking in their blatant condemnation of an entire people, even a people who were yet to be born. But all one has to do is spend a bit of time on the Web with Google searches for any common anti-semitic terms and ideas, and the amount of thinking of this type so readily available at a keystroke or two is truly staggering.

I am not saying that Paul or the author of the gospel of Matthew were “anti-semitic” in the full sense of that word as it develops in subsequent Christian thinking. But I am convinced that the sentiments that they express in these passages are the beginnings of a way of thinking that easily developed into, or was translated into, justification for the most horrible and unspeakable attrocities against the Jewish people. The power of language in human affairs is without match. And whether Paul or the writer of Matthew were sincerely following their vision of God’s will or not, their language and what it implies, and came to imply, is sad beyond measure.
One might easily take these sentiments, and many did, and conclude that at the bottom of all the woes of human history is one group–the Jews.

A number of times in Paul’s letters he uses a technical term in Greek, “to receive,” which is translated from a Greek verb paralambano, which does indeed often mean to pass on something from one authority to another by tradition (i.e., literally “handed on”).

For example, in 1 Corinthians 15 one of the most important chapters for Christian faith in the entire New Testament, Paul writes that he has “received” and then “passed on” (paradidomai) the teaching of that “Christ” (notice he does not say “Jesus”) died for sins, was buried, and was raised the “third day,” and then was seen by various ones–Peter, the Twelve, 500 brothers at once, James (Jesus’ brother), and all the apostles. Most have assumed this means Paul “received” this by some kind of testimony, as if he was told it on a human level, perhaps directly by Peter, or James, or some of the Twelve. That would indeed be a natural and potentially logical reading of Paul’s claims to have “received” this “gospel.”

However, if one begins to examine more carefully just how independently Paul claims to have “received” this or that, it becomes clear that he is not in fact getting these ideas, facts, and narratives, from sources who were eyewitnesses and thus passed them on to him. Rather he makes the explicit claim that he did not get his “gospel,” which he carefully defines in 1 Cor 15:1, from men, or from any human source, but by a revelation from Jesus Christ himself (Galatians 1:11-12). In fact, he uses the very same verb in these verses, namely, paralambano as he does in 1 Corinthians 15.

So if Paul claims that his “gospel,” of the “death, burial, and resurrection” of Jesus did not come from men, does he intend to say, after all, that he talked to James or to Peter or to John and received from them these testimonies he reports?

This is a very crucial point since many conservative Christians believers base everything on 1 Corinthians 15. It has become for these folk the absolute bedrock of the faith. Most who are trained in a bit of scholarship admit that the four Gospels came later, forty to sixty years after Jesus death, but there seems to be a special triumphant delight in pointing out that Paul writes that he received these things, and that he must mean he got them from the Jerusalem “pillars” (James, Peter, John), so they must go back to very soon after Jesus death.

The problem with this is that when Paul uses this special verb “receive,” which does normally mean something handed on from teacher to student, from hand to hand, from mouth to mouth, he does not mean it on any ordinary human level. What he clearly says he means is that he gets these things directly from Christ!

Now, these are not just general “impressions” or inspirational ideas. Paul actually claims to get sustained narrative accounts and specific information directly from Jesus. Notice his language in 1 Corinthians 11:23 when he says how he “received” (same Greek verb paralambano) his account of the Last Supper where Jesus told his disciples to drink his blood and eat his body through symbols of wine and bread! Where did he get such a shocking and totally non-Jewish idea? Eating human flesh and drinking human blood–even as a symbol? It is totally unknown in Jewish culture but well known in Greek magical rites. Notice, in his own words, he tells us. It was not from James, or Peter, or John, or from any of the Twelve where were there at the Last Supper–but he says very plainly: I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you…

As I see it these are the most telling twelve words in the history of Western ideas.

Think of it. Paul’s essential vision of things was taken up by Augustine and others and literally became Christianity, which then, combined with Plato, became the foundation of Western civilization.

But where did Paul, who never knew Jesus, get what he says he got? He tells us here–”from the Lord.” But since Jesus is long dead, he must be getting this from clairvoyant voices and visions and revelations, of which he says he has had many! (2 Corinthians 12). That he would even claim to get this kind of narrative material from “the Lord,” that is a detailed account of what happened at the Last Supper, should give anyone pause. He is not here passing on what he got from those who were there, but he is saying he got it from “the Lord,” in heaven by supernatural revelation.

Given that language, this must also be what he means in 1 Corinthians 15 when he reports these “resurrection” sightings. Notice carefully, he uses the same precise language when he tells his followers at Thessalonica how the events at the appearance of Christ (2nd coming) will unfold. What he says is, “This I tell you by the word of the Lord...” (1 Thess 4:15). He then gives details of just how things will unfold, far beyond what anyone could ascertain from texts of the Hebrew Prophets. So how would he know such things? He tells you plainly–the Lord told him!

What people need to realize is that if one bases faith on what Paul taught, which all Christians do, then that basis is not coming from those who were with Jesus (whom Paul sarcastically calls the “so-called pillars of the church”), but upon voices and visions and revelations that Paul is “hearing” and “seeing.” For some that is a strong foundation. For many, including I think most historians, it is really something that one must question in terms of accurate and reliable historical information. Can Paul really know what went on at the Last Supper when he was not there? Can he really know how the events of the end will unfold?

I am working on a book about Paul and this central problem, long ago noted by Paul’s oppoments, later labeled as “Ebionites,” is central to my thesis. I am continually amazed at how much is build upon Paul and how little on Jesus. Paul perfers the words Lord and Christ. The name “Jesus” suggests to him something too close to what he calls negatively “Christ after the flesh.” Paul is all for “Christ,” but cares little for Jesus as he was on earth as a human being who lived and died. He minimizes those who knew Jesus and those whom Jesus personally chose to represent him. All now comes from “the Lord,” but he means by this a heavenly glorified being who in his fantasy sits above all powers and realities of the entire universe but speaks directly to Paul, his special chosen one, with direct voice contact and information. If Paul is right, then so be it. But if he is wrong, then what a left turn was taken away from the historical Jesus. I say reader beware.