Disclosure: I received a complementary review copy of this book from the publisher.

Prefer to listen to the review in audio form? Click here.

Lois Tverberg is a biologist, but in our circles she is better know for another occupation: a writer who explores the Jewish context of Jesus’ life. As a Lutheran (at least in background), Tverberg is a writer well-suited to explain the Jewish context of Yeshua to Christian readers. As a scientist she has the energy and passion for research that are required to find connections between rabbinic literature and the gospels. Her portrayal has much substance because of her dedication to learning.

What I like most about this book is its focus on and clear exposition of the ethics of Yeshua.

Tverberg gives an example early into the book that is a great corrective to what, in my opinion, is an over-emphasis in some forms of Christianity on right belief as opposed to right practice:

. . . our culture tends to exalt our intellect as critical and discount our actions. Some of us Christians even see actions as ‘dead works’ that are irrelevant, even opposed to faith. You often see this unhappy disconnect online, when Christians respond to what they consider theological error with rude, ugly insults, feeling innocent of wrongdoing as long as they are outing a ‘heretic.’ Knowing the right thing is paramount; obeying Christ’s command to ‘love your neighbor’ is irrelevant.

One thing I love when I find a good book on Yeshua is to see how the author will develop the topic, to see what they include and what priority they give to certain things. Tverberg has done well in choosing examples of Yeshua’s ethical teachings.

• She begins in a place often overlooked. When asked, “What was the greatest commandment according to Jesus?” many people make a subtle error. They jump right to the “love God” command. But close readers know that Mark and Mark alone gives the full context (Mark 12:28-31). Yeshua began with the “Hear O Israel” command, the Shema, before the love God command.
• Tverberg explains the significance of the word Shema and rightly makes it a starting point for understanding Yeshua who said, “For him who has ears to hear.” She explains to readers who may be unaware the significance of “hear in order to obey” as a key to following Yeshua.
• From there she proceeds to the “love God” command and adds depth from the Jewish practice of looking for meaning in the exact working of Torah. She draws on the mystery of the final word in the love God command, which might be rendered love God “with all your muchness.” She points out that we do not have to choose between three interpretations, but can accept all three as layers: with all your strength, with all your intelligence, and also with all your increase (meaning income, so that you love God by giving to those in need).
• In the next section, on the “love neighbor” command, Tverberg helps us explore the debate about whether “neighbor” means only the one like us. She shows how Yeshua’s teaching cuts through the excuses not to love the outsider and the enemy.
• Next, she explains the good eye (Matt 6:22-23). Few people have any idea of this Jewish concept though it has been in the gospels for two thousand years.
• And then she shows the concept behind doing things as Yeshua said “in my name” (Matt 10:41-42). What does “in Yeshua’s name” mean in the original Jewish context of the phrase?
• Appropriately she goes on the kosher mouth concept which Yeshua taught (Luke 6:45).
• And Yeshua said there are ethics involved in the way we judge others (Luke 6:36-37).
• Very few understand the Jewish principle behind the parable of the persistent widow, but Tverberg aptly explains it (Luke 18:2-5).
• And Yeshua taught what Tverberg calls “thinking with both hands,” a means of weighing commandments (Luke 6:9).

Walking in the Dust of Rabbi Jesus is an easy to read — but harder to live — crash course in the ethics of Yeshua. From Shema to love God to love neighbor to the good eye to living in his name to the kosher mouth to balanced judgment to chutzpah in prayer to weighing the commandments — Tverberg’s course is a great sampling of Yeshua’s way of life. It is a book to read and re-read, to Shema it, not just to hear it.

And another of my pointers, which forms the basis for this post: “Understand the genre of parables in rabbinic literature.” And the golden text for learning about this subject: David Stern, Parables in Midrash (note: this is not the David Stern who is famous in the Messianic Jewish community, but the Professor of Classical Hebrew Literature at the University of Pennsylvania).

WHAT IS THE RELATION BETWEEN RABBINIC PARABLES AND YESHUA’S?
This is a tricky question that needs to be addressed. Rabbinic parables started being written down in the fourth century in the land of Israel. That’s quite a long time after Yeshua. Some books and studies have unwisely blurred the lines between the first and fourth century.

Stern sums it up simply: “They were both part of a single genre” (188). This conclusion is based on the work of David Flusser (a scholar whose work, in my opinion, has flaws, but on this specific issue he must have made his point well) who demonstrated that literary characteristics of rabbinic parables have much in common with parables in the gospels.

People were telling parables already before Yeshua’s time and the genre continued with much similarity for hundreds of years.

WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF PARABLES IN RABBINIC WRITINGS?
Rabbinical parables in most cases originated “in public contexts (sermons or preaching), and as an instrument for praise or blame, often directed at persons in the audience” (200). They “tend to be phrased in terms of praise or blame, or as a variation upon these opposites: approbation or disapproval, appreciation or disappointment, pleasure or pain” (52).

Among the purposes mentioned by Stern for parables are apologetics (defending the idea of faith against ideas that undermine it) and polemics (urging a point of view in opposition to others).

WHAT PARABLES ARE NOT
They are not primarily about doctrine. They may reflect on doctrinal themes. But they are primarily about praise or blame.

They are not riddles intended to confuse outsiders. Stern argues this in spite of Yeshua’s sayings about “to you has been given the secret of the kingdom” and “in order that they might not see” in Mark 4:11-12 (and parallels in Matthew 13:11-13 and Luke 8:10).

Stern thinks Yeshua (or Mark) has been misunderstood. The point is not that the parables were too hard to understand rationally. The point is that outsiders, those who do not remain near to Yeshua and ask questions and learn from him, will not be able to apply them. They will not penetrate the deeper message of the parables, which are mysteries, truths of a complex nature, involving more than interpretation: “To understand correctly, one must be a member of the community” (204).

TIPS FOR READING PARABLES
Who is Yeshua praising and why?

Who is he blaming and why?

How does the praise and blame from the parable receive added information from Yeshua’s teaching and actions with the disciples?

In other words, the parables are persuasive pieces of rhetoric designed to encourage action or belief in a certain direction. They are not primarily about information or revealing doctrine. The rabbinic parables may be later, but they provide a wealth of additional contexts in which we can see the same patterns as in Yeshua’s parables. They confirm for us the way parables were used in public speaking to persuade hearers to a new course of action or to stand firm in a good course of action or belief. We should look for Yeshua’s parables to function the same way.

This will largely keep us from reading too much later Christian theology into the parables, to imagine that they are about a timeline for the last days or a foretelling of Christendom or anything of the kind. They are persuasive sermons delivered to Jews in Galilee and Judea about Jewish life and faith.

The Society of Biblical Literature Greek Text (minus accents):
’Αρχη του ’ευαγγελιου ’Ιησου χριστου.

Note: See below regarding the missing phrase “son of God.”

The Delitzsch Hebrew text (from the Delitzsch Hebrew Gospels, Vine of David):
תְּחִלַּת בְּשׂוֹרַת יֵשׁוּעַ הַמָּשִׁחַ בֶּן–הָאֱלֹהִים

Tekhillat besorat Yeshua HaMashiakh ben-haElohim.

The English Translation RSV:
The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

The English Translation DHE (Delitzsch Hebrew English, Vine of David):
The beginning of the good news of Yeshua the Mashiach, the son of God.

SHOULD “SON OF GOD” BE HERE?
Adela Yarbro Collins (Hermeneia Commentary) gives a compelling answer: the phrase “son of God” was almost certainly added by a scribe. It does exist in some good manuscripts (including Sinaiticus and Vaticanus). But it is virtually impossible to explain how a scribe would omit “son of God” on the introductory verse of the gospel, whereas it is easy to explain how a scribe would add “son of God” (since similar additions to add sanctity in depicting Yeshua happen in other places in the gospels).

If you are not used to the idea that manuscripts of the Bible vary in numerous details, a quick glance at the Wikipedia article, “Textual Variants in the New Testament,” should give you the idea.

WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES “SON OF GOD” MAKE?
Mark’s introductory verse is, arguably, a statement of his purpose throughout the gospel.

The way Mark tells the story of Yeshua, we see again and again the lofty but hidden identity of Yeshua. Every single pericope (scene) in Mark seems designed to explore who he is. And the titles “Messiah/Christ” and “Son of God” both fit well with Mark’s writing.

If we assume Mark 1:1 did not originally say “son of God,” this does not necessarily weaken the view that the introductory verse is a statement of purpose. For Mark, we can guess that the whole issue of Yeshua’s hidden but lofty identity is wrapped up in the word Christ or Messiah. His gospel is about Yeshua the Messiah (Jesus the Christ). And “son of God” is appropriate to the way he reveals Yeshua later.

DELITZSCH’S TRANSLATION OF “BEGINNING”
Delitzsch could have used reshit for beginning but opted for tekhillat instead. Some commentators think Mark was evoking the beginning of Genesis (bereshit, or “in the reshit“). Delitzsch chose instead tekhillat, a word used 21 times in the Hebrew Bible for the onset of a period of time.

This is rather more like Hosea 1:2 (“when the Lord began to speak through Hosea” or “when the Lord first spoke through Hosea”) than Genesis 1:1.

In other words. Delitzsch considered (presumably) and rejected the idea of an allusion to Genesis. He saw Mark 1:1, rather, as referring to the beginning of a new era, the era of the good news. Collins and some other commentators think “beginning” refers not just to the period covered in the book of Mark itself, but even beyond the end of Mark. The place where Mark picks up the story is the beginning of something new in the history of the world. It is tekhillat besorah, the beginning of the [era of] good news in Messiah.

BESORAH-GOSPEL-GOOD NEWS
In the Hebrew Bible, the word for tidings from a messenger can be neutral (good or bad tidings) or in some cases it seems to imply good tidings (even without the adjective good being used). This is an example of a confusing and vague connotation for a word in another language. If you were to ask, “Does besorah mean simply news or good news?” the answer would have to be, “It depends on context.”

Besorah is used 6 times in the Hebrew Bible and its verb form, mevasser, is used also 6 times.

There is something significant in that the earliest language describing the impact of Yeshua on the world (Mark and Paul as examples) uses besorah (“good news” or “tidings from a messenger”) and not simply davar (“word” or “message”). A word from a messenger is inherently important, about something crucial and perhaps even a matter of life or death. The story of Yeshua is not just any word or message. It is world changing, as in the inscription about Caesar Augustus at Priene in Asia Minor: “the birthday of the god was for the world the beginning of joyful tidings which have been proclaimed on his account” (cf. Daniel Harrington, Sacra Pagina commentary).

A form of the Greek euangelion translates the Hebrew mevasser of Isaiah 52:7 in the Septuagint (LXX). Isaiah 52:7 in the RSV reads, “How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him who brings good tidings.”

“Gospel” is a word deriving from Middle English (God-spell) and seems to be based on the idea that hearing the story of Jesus can put you under the God-spell (change your life with divine power). It is one of those religious words we probably ought to use less often. It is one of many examples of perfectly normal words that have become confusing due to religious use (favor-grace, rescue-salvation, gospel-tidings).

CHRISTOU: NAME OR TITLE?
Delitzsch’s Hebrew translation puts the definite article into Yeshua HaMashiakh whereas the Greek text has not definite article (Iesou Christou). In other words, Delitzsch seeks to clarify Christ-Messiah as a title and downplay the possibility it came to be used like a name.

Mark can distinguish between the two kinds of usage. Compare Mark 1:1 with Mark 8:29:
1:1, Iesou Christou, Yeshua Messiah.
8:29, su ei ho Christos, you are the Messiah.

Collins thinks that “Christ” came to be used as a name in the early movement, though its roots clearly came from the title, “the Christ” or “the Messiah.”

EVALUATING DELITZSCH
Delitzsch has made some decisions with which I disagree. He opts to keep “son of God” in the verse in spite of the more likely explanation that it was added later. He opts to make “Messiah” and title and not reproduce it as a name, though evidence is to the contrary.

Still, all translation involves reproducing the original idea from one culture into a different one. In making a Jewish edition of the gospels in Hebrew, it is reasonable that Delitzsch would use “Messiah” in the more familiar Jewish manner.

Delitzsch has also made decisions with which I agree: using tekhillat for beginning instead of trying to evoke Genesis and using besorah for gospel/good-news.

SUMMARY
Mark 1:1 is statement of purpose, a statement about the identity of Yeshua, and a statement about the impact of Yeshua on the world. Mark’s purpose will be to show Yeshua the Nazarene as Yeshua Messiah (or Yeshua the Messiah). He will define “Messiah” by the things he shows Yeshua doing and saying.

Mark also makes a statement about Yeshua’s identity: he is worthy of the name Messiah.

And he makes a statement in this verse about the impact of Yeshua on the world: he is good tidings from heaven, a world changing figure whose life story begins a new era.

Are not all these who are speaking Galileans?
-Acts 2:7

The miracle of that special Shavuot (Pentecost) at the Temple was something very human: the appearance of the Spirit of God in individual theophanies on the disciples. Many onlookers seem to have missed the tongues of fire that Luke says rested on the disciples. What they noticed was the strange speech. Humble Israelites were speaking languages from far away lands. And it occurred to the onlookers as more than strange that these powerfully endued speakers were Galilean.

It was the Judeans, not the Galileans, who emphasized scribal education. If anyone might be expected to have such learning of languages, and possibly if anyone were to be chosen as a prophet, most would expect this to happen to Judeans and not Galileans.

What is the nature of being a Galilean in Yeshua’s time? How had the history of Galilee shaped the people there? Were these Galileans descendants of foreign converts? Were the relocated Judeans? Or were they descended from the northern tribes of Israel who had long ago settled in Galilee? How separate and independent was Galilee from Judea? Did Galileans have a different outlook than Judeans on matters of Temple and Judaism? How did being a Galilean impact the personality and methods of Yeshua?

Background: Galilee from Deborah’s Time to Yeshua’s

A great resource for understanding Galilee is Richard Horsley’s Archaeology, History, and Society in Galilee.

To begin to understand the Galileans, go back to Judges 5 and the days of Deborah the prophetess. Egyptian power is crumbling and their control of Canaan is slipping. The Canaanite city-states have been here for a long time. They are the old order. They tax the surrounding agricultural lands. Their wealth and power derives from the land, but their military might is Egypt.

The Israelites moved in during this phase of crumbling power. In many cases, and the hints of this scenario show through in Joshua and especially in Judges, the Israelites did not cast off the Canaanite powers all at once. Instead, the Israelites settled on less valuable land, terracing hillsides and eking out a difficult agricultural living. They stayed out of the normal realms of Canaanite power, so that the cost to the Canaanites to make war on them was often too high to be worth the fight. You could say that Israelites got their start in Canaan living in the shadows of the crumbling city-states.

Galilee was a prime area for this sort of avoidance. The hills and rugged terrain included many places where agriculture was difficult but possible. And when Deborah the prophetess presided over a war with a major Canaanite power, Jabin the king of Hazor and his general Sisera, the people of Naphtali and Zebulon fought valiantly. They were Galileans. And we read of them:

They shall recount the righteous deeds of the Lord . . . for his peasantry in Israel . . . The people came down to me as warriors . . . Zebulun was a people who despised their lives even to death, and Naphtali also in the high places of the field.

They despised their lives to the point of death, a trait Galileans would be known for more than once in history. Galileans have been called “fiercely independent.” And they occupied “high places in the field,” which Horsley suggests may describe terraced agriculture on the hills.

After the time of Yeshua, when the Jewish war with Rome broke out in 66 CE, Josephus said of the Galileans, who were under his command, “they had always been numerous and warlike” (Jewish War 3:41-43).

The Question of Identity: Who Were the Galileans?

Misinformation abounds about the identity of the Galileans and the phenomenon of the so-called “Lost Tribes.” You may have heard either that the Galileans were gentiles, forcibly converted in the days of the Maccabean rulers known as the Hasmoneans. Or you may have heard that the Galileans were actually peoples from Judea who settled in Galilee, so that the people of Galilee and Judea really came from the same handful of tribes.

Adding to the confusion is the well-known label from Isaiah 9, which we will say more about later, referring to Galilee as Galilee of the gentiles. Furthermore, as the city of Sepphoris was being discovered in recent times, many made irresponsible claims about how a big Greco-Roman city dominated Galilee and how the people of Galilee were so enthralled with Greek and Roman culture. Some were teaching that Jesus the carpenter probably did most of his work in nearby Sepphoris. Some scholars with massive audiences have been portraying Jesus in the image of a Greek wandering philosopher, Jesus the Cynic Sage.

Horsley goes back to the biblical accounts of the Assyrian conquest of the northern tribes of Israel and also to Assyrian descriptions of the fighting in Israel and the deportation of Israelites. His conclusion? The Assyrians only took the skilled artisans, military leaders, scribes, and ruling elite. Horsley dismisses language in both the biblical account and Assyrian accounts about “all the people” being taken away. This kind of language is not to be taken literally, he says. A more detailed examination of Assyrian methods and the numbers of deportees suggests that the only valuable deportees were the ones who could be of use to the Assyrians.

Furthermore, the Assyrians immediately sent in their own administrators to take control of Galilee after conquering it in 732 and Samaria in 722. The reason they would send in administrators is to tax the agricultural land. This they could only do if the peasantry was still there, working the land as they had always done, but now for new masters.

This means that the Galilee of Yeshua’s time was populated with Israelites, with peoples who had occupied this land for over a thousand years. They had never formed their own aristocracy but had served rulers in Samaria, Judea, and foreign overlords. Yet their lives were governed by agriculture and they got along just fine whoever was in charge.

The Galilean Spirit

How did Galileans relate to Judaism, to the Temple in Judea, to the religious powers vying for control? Were they loyal to the Sadducees and High Priest? Were they interested in the Essene or Pharisaic movements seeking to renew Israel under a different vision of Torah living?

We should suspect that Galileans were never loyal to Judea or Samaria in particular. The power of the chief priests mattered little to Galilean farmers. Galilean piety was a matter of pilgrimage to the Temple, of giving tithes, of education in the Torah in village schools. Their attitude to the Temple, which we see perfectly in the teaching of Yeshua the Galilean, would be reverence for what the Temple was supposed to represent, obligation to the laws of tithe and sacrifice, but resentment toward the false priests who were not from the legitimate priestly lines and resentment toward the power-plays of the leaders in Jerusalem.

To the Galileans, the “Jews,” meaning Judeans, were corrupting the place of God’s dwelling. Yet they were obligated to tithe and make pilgrimage to the Temple in spite of such corruption. At least, this summarizes Yeshua’s feelings as represented in the gospels and fits well with the situation of Galilee. Galileans would have more naturally emphasized the aspects of tithing that were about redistribution to the needy in the local towns while Judeans emphasized the tithe as a sort of tax to make the leadership powerful and wealthy.

The developing traditions of the elders, promoted by the Pharisees and some of the Judean scribes, were a foreign notion to Galilee. The small but in some ways popular movement of Pharisaic and scribal teachers was a Judean phenomenon. The Galilean holy man best known in the Talmud is Hanina ben Dosa, who is represented as separate from the Judean schools, but reluctantly respected by Yohanan ben Zakkai due to his effectiveness in prayer. As Geza Vermes depicted Hanina in his book Jesus the Jew, so we might think of Yeshua as a pious man with Torah learning, but not in the traditions of the Judean scribes.

Matthew 22 as Galilean vs. Judean

One place where the Galilean vs. Judean ideas about God and Torah show up is Matthew 22. For more details, see my article, “Galilean vs. Judean in Matthew 22.”

Some Judeans try to trap Yeshua at the Temple into making either an unpopular statement in support of Caesar’s tax or a statement that could get him arrested if he publicly opposed Caesar’s tax. Yeshua, the Galilean, out does his opponents with a simple rebuke. He says, “Show me the coin used for the poll-tax.”

How is this a Galilean rebuke against the Judeans? The answer is simple. No Galilean would have on their person a coin which has an image of Caesar and that proclaims Caesar the filius divius, or son of god. In other words, these Judeans have been corrupted by their power games and they have become too much like Rome.

Similarly, the other stories in Matthew 22 show a Galilean Yeshua answering Judeans. The Sadducees do not have proper faith in the afterlife and are defeated in debate with a mere Galilean. A Judean Pharisee is surprised at Yeshua’s insight into the greatest commandment of Torah. And Yeshua castigates the Judean Pharisees for making themselves out to be teachers and yet they do not understand the basics of the promise of Messiah.

Yeshua is a Galilean. He reveres the Temple, but denounces the corruption of the Judean Temple-state. He reveres Torah, but denounces the authoritative stance of Judean self-proclaimed authorities. He accuses them of overruling God’s commandments and misinterpreting Torah. Yet he also teaches his disciples to respect their teaching, apparently looking for the good and throwing out the bad.

And, when the first followers of Yeshua gather for Shavuot at the Temple, there are doubtless some Judeans among them. But overall as a group, they are Galileans. Jerusalem is the holy city and the announcement of Yeshua must take hold in Jerusalem and go out from there.

But is a message about a Galilean, first believed by a group of Galileans. It is as Isaiah had said:

In the former time he brought into contempt the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the latter time he will make glorious the way of the sea, the land beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the nations. The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; those who dwelt in a land of deep darkness, on them has light shined.
-Isaiah 8:23-9:1 or 9:1-2 in Christian Bibles

As Horsley explains it, “Galilee of the Nation” translates galil hagoyim, which literally means “circle of the nations.” And Galilee gets its name from the word for circle. It is not that Galilee is gentile, but that it is ringed all around by gentile cities.

And as we see when we examine the Galilean nature of Yeshua’s first followers and his own Galilean attitudes and ways, truly the light did come to Galilee. The fiercely independent Galileans saw a great light and the man of Galilee did become known to all the nations.

Yet, before we would jump to Paul’s explanation of Abraham (Rom 4:3; Gal 3:7), it is good to consider a step earlier than the realization that Abraham represents faith. It is eye-opening to re-read some of the Abraham texts in the gospels with an eye for first century Jewish ideas about election, covenant, and afterlife. Let’s begin with three texts:

Bear fruit that befits repentance, and do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father’; for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham. Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. (Matt 3:8-10; cf. Luke 3:8-10).

When Yeshua heard him, he marveled, and said to those who followed him, “Truly, I say to you, not even in Israel have I found such faith. I tell you, many will come from east and west and sit at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth.” And to the centurion Yeshua said, “Go; be it done for you as you have believed.” (Matt 8:10-13).

The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s bosom. The rich man also died and was buried; and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes, and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus in his bosom. And he called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy upon me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in anguish in this flame.’ But Abraham said, ‘Son, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.’ (Luke 16:22-26).

In all three of these texts, Abraham represents Israel’s election as the Chosen People and the idea, current in Yeshua’s time, that being born a child of Abraham put a person in a privileged position with God.

Modern scholars, following E.P. Sanders, have called this belief covenantal nomism. Nomism refers to the Greek word for Law (nomos) and it is the idea that every Israelite, already being in covenant with God and privileged with inclusion in the afterlife already, would keep at least enough Torah (nomos) to remain Jewish. Sanders rightly dismissed the idea that first century Jews were like the Pelagians that Augustine fought or the medieval churchmen that Luther fought. They were not by the merit of their deeds thinking they gained position with God.

Yeshua’s problem (and John the Baptist’s problem) with the idea of Abrahamic privilege is much the same as Yeshua’s problem with what Temple and Torah had become. Yeshua did not reject Temple, Torah, or the Abrahamic promise. In every case, he rejected the false sense of privilege and entitlement that people felt as “the Chosen.”

John said to his audience at the Jordan that their rightness with God depended on repentance and living according to justice as in the Torah and prophets. Yeshua said that “sons of the kingdom” would be excluded from Abraham’s table in the messianic age while many gentiles from “east and west” would be included, because of faith. In the Lazarus and the Rich Man parable, both are Israelites and standard thinking would be that both would be at Abraham’s bosom (a reference to reclining at a table next to Abraham). Yet Yeshua says the rich man will be excluded because he ignored day after day the beggar at his gates, proving his hard heart was not for God.

Nearly every use of “Abraham” in the gospels, including John, is a reference to this notion of carnal election, privilege by birth, and is a vehicle for Yeshua to say, “Election in Abraham is not an invitation to the banquet to come, but a calling to be like Abraham in making this world like the one to come.”

See also a treatment of more Abraham texts in “Abraham in the Gospels.”

Yeshua is the Moses-like Prophet-to-Come, the New Moses, whose agency as the Voice of the Father reveals depths of God unknown or ambiguous in previous revelation.

I listed for readers the findings of Paul Anderson regarding the prophet-like-Moses theme in the fourth gospel, which is not a minor motif but a guiding principle of the entire Gospel of John (see my post “Moses-Like-Prophet in John” here).

In searching out examples of how Yeshua revealed greater depths of God than had previously been known, I first went down a path seeking in the teaching of Yeshua new revelation. I think to some degree I was on the wrong path. I came up with a list of nine existential questions about God and us that are addressed in Yeshua’s teaching and wrote a blog post about it (see “The Son Has Spoken” here).

Yet as I taught this material at our synagogue, a perceptive woman and friend said, “But, Derek, none of that is new. That’s all good interpretation of what’s already in the Hebrew Bible.”

I quickly realized she was right. In terms of Yeshua’s teaching about God’s nature, nearly all of it is accessible in the Hebrew Bible if you avoid certain pitfalls. Judaism has, like Christianity, fallen into a number of pitfalls in this area (e.g., the Saadian and Maimonidean ideas about God’s unity and transcendence in utter denial of real Presence).

Not long after realizing that I was searching in the wrong place — looking for Yeshua’s new revelation of the depths of God in his teaching — I came across some good thoughts on the New Moses theme in Matthew in a book by Darrell Bock (Jesus According to Scripture). His comments on Matthew 13:16-17, 52, made me realize that Yeshua’s purpose in teaching was often to clarify what was already in the old. The new wine was mostly new because the shepherds of Israel did not, in Yeshua’s time, understand the message of the prophets.

Those prophets, according to Matthew 13:16-17, desired to look into Yeshua’s time, to see in his identity and teaching the completion of what they envisioned. And the good scribe of the kingdom (the scribe who knows the King, Yeshua, and looks for his kingdom to come) brings forth both new and old. That is, the old (Hebrew Bible) is inextricably connected with the new, and the scribe brings forth the connections (but most writing about “messianic prophecy” has been terrible and has not followed scribal patterns at all).

Where I needed to be looking, to find the new revelation of the Sent-One, was not in Yeshua’s public teaching, per se. I needed to be looking more at his deeds (somewhat in combination with his teaching). It is more in the deeds and hints at the identity of Yeshua that we find the new things coming forth from the old.

I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children.
Matthew 11:25 (and Luke 10:21).

What are some of the things revealed to little children that may be referenced here?

The following list is subject to more evidence that I am planning to give here. I am not pretending that in listing these points I have demonstrated my case for them. This is an initial presentation of some themes and ideas presented in the gospels that cry out for closer scrutiny. Also, it is important to me not to simply draw from the fourth gospel, where the exalted identity of Yeshua is especially emphasized. Any meaningful portrait of what is new in Yeshua ought to draw from the synoptics as well as John.

• The Way of Surrender. I was struck by a phrase in an essay by Marianne Meye Thompson: the path that God designates . . . giving power up in surrender of one’s life and service to others (“Jesus and His God” in The Cambridge Companion to Jesus, 2001). Yeshua not only described his own messianic career as being about surrender of his life and service, but said repeatedly that disciples were to lose their life, that the last was greatest, and that his followers should be servants to all. This is not simply social justice (the message of the Israelite prophets). It is a radical step beyond. It is Messiah killed being the real glory of Messiah. It is kingdom subjects not only working for justice, but selling everything for a pearl of great value. This is not an incidental theme, but is central in all four gospels (the messianic secret, the Sermon on the Mount, the kingdom for the poor, the lifted up Son of Man, and many other themes).
• Ransom theology. This is an outgrowth of the first point. In surrendering all, Yeshua accomplishes a ransom. The famous ransom passage (Mk 10:45; Mt 20:28) is greeted with skepticism by many scholars (a late addition? it sounds too churchy, say some). Ransom theology goes beyond the way of surrender theme. Not only does Yeshua give up power in service to others, but his surrender to death, but this act of sacrifice is a necessary transaction for people to have life. This is cross theology. It grows out of the Exodus-Passover story.
• Faith as inclusion in the kingdom. I do not think Yeshua in any way denies the election of Israel, which is a carnal election (via birth, not faith). I think, rather, he introduces a concept of a second requirement beyond election. The renewal movement of Yeshua suggests it is not enough to be Israel. God has not yet sent the messianic age because Israel has to go beyond being the Elect. Israel must believe and act according to belief. And in making belief the requirement for renewal, Yeshua opens the door for those in the Nations as well. This is where Yeshua’s universalism (that the divine covenant promises cover the whole world and not only Israel) comes through the door. Paul’s “works of the Law” equal presumption of rightness with God via birth as Jews (or conversion). Paul’s “salvation by faith” equals Yeshua’s call to “believe in me.” This is where Matthew 13:16-17 is really explained: the prophets called for faith and action, but the object of that faith and action was waiting to be seen. Yeshua claims to be that object of faith. And the action required is belief in his identity and message. The irrevocable election of Israel remains important, for in the fulness of time, Israel will also come to the renewal of faith, as the prophets had already foretold. And now that Yeshua has come, that faith can only be in the Messiah himself.
• Word made flesh (incarnation). It is not only John, as some think, but all through the gospels, that we see Yeshua as the Exalted One, whose identity is more than a man. It is a mystery, because the nature of God as both transcendent (the Eternal, the Beyond-Knowing) and immanent (the Word-Glory-Presence) is mysterious. Yeshua is more than the Prophet-like-Moses, ultimately, but is the Prophetic-word incarnate. He is Living Torah. All things have been handed over to Yeshua by the Father. Even the wind and waves obey him. He comes in the Glory of his Father. He is greater than the Temple. He is before Abraham. Unless we know that he is, we will die in our sins.

Yeshua heals and those with faith are made well. Yeshua defeats evil powers and demons are drawn to oppose him, but they can only obey his greater authority. Yeshua criticizes the shepherds of Israel who have followed the pattern of domination and not surrender. Yeshua gathers disciples for his way of surrender. And Yeshua surrenders to the difficult will of the Father (“he will speak to them all that I command him,” “the word which you hear is not mine but the Father’s who sent me”). And all these things are revealed not to the wise, the shepherds of Israel who deal in power, but to little children.

I’ve had a number of “Beloved Disciple” articles here (see “The Beloved Disciple: Who is He?” and “The Beloved Disciple in Relation to Peter”).

Now, I’m summarizing Bauckham’s historical detective work following the trail leading to the identity of the Beloved Disciple. It’s a twisted trail sorting through evidence with a number of errors which require explanation. It’s fascinating to historically understand how simple the identification of the Beloved Disciple is and why the information has been obscured in ancient mistakes.

THE MIXED-UP STATEMENT OF POLYCRATES, c. 190 CE

THE WITNESS: Polycrates was the Bishop of Ephesus in Asia Minor writing to Victor of Rome around 190 CE about the Paschal Controversy (look up “Quartodecimanism” or “Easter Controversy” in wikipedia). Keep in mind the tradition that the fourth gospel was written by “John” (but which John) in Ephesus.

STATEMENT: “John too, who leant back on the Lord’s breast, who was a priest, wearing the sacerdotal plate, both martyr and teacher.”

LEANT BACK? The Beloved Disciple leaned on Yeshua’s breast at the Last Supper and Polycrates says the Beloved Disciple is none other than John, see John 13:25 and 21:20. But wait! Which John does he mean?

SACERDOTAL PLATE? In Greek, the πεταλον (petalon), which is the plate that has God’s name on it worn by the High Priest only. But wait! Was John, according to Polycrates, supposed to have been the High Priest? Major problem.

COULD POLYCRATES HAVE MEANT IT FIGURATIVELY? Not likely. There is a similar misnomer about James, the brother of Yeshua, who is said in Epiphanius, citing a passage in Eusebius quoting Hegesippus, to have been High Priest and to have worn the sacerdotal plate also. Bauckham explains how Epiphanius misunderstood Hegesippus and how this error possibly came to be. But it suggests that early Christians were susceptible to claims like High Priesthoods for apostolic figures.

COULD IT BE TRUE THAT JOHN WAS HIGH PRIEST? Several scholars have suggested it could actually be true and they use Acts 4:5-6 as a basis, “On the morrow their rulers and elders and scribes were gathered together in Jerusalem, with Annas the high priest and Caiaphas and John and Alexander, and all who were of the high-priestly family.”

HOW DO WE EXPLAIN POLYCRATES’ MISTAKE? Bauckham points to another mistake made by Polycrates in the same passage. Speaking of Philip who came to live in Hierapolis, “Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who has fallen asleep in Hierapolis.” Polycrates is actually speaking of Philip the evangelist (Acts 6:5, throughout ch. 8; 21:8), and not Philip, one of the Twelve (Mk 3:18 and many other references in all four gospels). Bauckham explains that there was a trend in the early Christian writers to assume that characters with the same names were identical, which explains Polycrates’ mistake regarding Philip. Likewise, then, he might have assumed that the John in Acts 4:5-6 was the John the Beloved Disciple of the fourth gospel (and equated him with John, son of Zebedee as well.

THE NAME YOCHANAN (JOHN): Is the 5th most popular Palestinian Jewish name on record from the period of the New Testament (Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 85).

ACTS 4:5-6 AS A FURTHER CLUE: The “John” in Acts 4:5-6 is not the son of Zebedee. We know this because John, son of Zebedee appears as a separate character there (vs. 13).

THE IDENTITY AT LAST!! Thus, the beloved disciple, as far as Polycrates is concerned, is not John, son of Zebedee, but another John. We know of another John, also a disciple, but not one of the Twelve, who, along with Aristion, resided in Ephesus and was an elder there. He is John the elder (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.39.3-4) a.k.a. John of Ephesus.

(1) The multiple meanings of an important scripture may become evident over time as events unfold.

(2) God at times may fulfill expectations (ones he approves of) regardless of the plain meaning of prophecies.

From Dale Allison, I learned of the New Moses theme in Matthew. From Raymond Brown’s commentary I first learned of the Prophet theme in John. But it is from Paul Anderson’s The Christology of the Fourth Gospel that I learned how much this theme really plays into the fourth gospel.

Statements and Concepts from Deuteronomy 18:15-22

• Like Moses: “God will raise up for you a prophet from among your own people, like myself.”
• To be obeyed: “him you shall heed.”
• God’s voice to terrible to hear: “Let me not hear the voice of the Lord my God any longer.”
• No one can bear the sight of God: “…or see this wondrous fire any more, lest I die.”
• God gives him words: “I will put My words in his mouth.”
• He says only what God shows him: “He will speak to them all that I command him.”
• God judges, not the prophet: “If anybody fails to heed the words he speaks in My name, I myself will call him to account.”
• Unauthorized prophets anathema: “any prophet who presumes to speak in My name…that prophet shall die”
• Signs will reveal the identity of the Prophet: “If the prophet speaks in the name of the Lord and the oracle does not come true, that oracle was not spoken by the Lord.”

Yeshua as the Prophet-Like-Moses in John

• Statements that explain Yeshua as the fulfiller of Mosaic roles: 1:17; 3:14; 6:32; 7:19.”Law was given through Moses; grace and truth through Yeshua.”
• Statements that Moses wrote concerning Yeshua: 1:45; 5:46. “Him of whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote.”
• Onlookers identify Yeshua as the Prophet: 6:14. “This is indeed the prophet who is to come into the world!”
• Yeshua says what he has seen and heard from the Father: numerous references including 14:24, “the word which you hear is not mine but the Father’s who sent me.”
• Hearing Yeshua requires believing in him: numerous references including 5:24, “he who hears my word and believes him who sent me, has eternal life; he does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.”
• Rejecting Yeshua is rejecting the Father: 5:37-38; 8:47; 12:46-48. “You do not have his word abiding in you, for you do not believe him whom he has sent.”
• Yeshua speaks only the words he receives: numerous references including 7:16, “My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me,” and 5:19, “The Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing.”
• Yeshua offers signs of his authenticity as the Sent Prophet: numerous references including 10:38, “Even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.”
• The name of Yeshua the Prophet carries great weight: numerous references including 15:16, “Whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you.”
• The Father judges for not heeding the Prophet: 3:16-18; 12:47, “If any one hears my sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world.”
• Yeshua word as the Prophet is the standard of judgment: 12:28, “the word that I have spoken will be his judge on the last day.”
• Yeshua accused of speaking presumptuously and being a false prophet: numerous references including 7:12, “He is leading the people astray.”
• Yeshua foretells his suffering accurately: 13:18-19, “I tell you this now, before it takes place, that when it does take place you may believe that I am he.”

Paul Anderson’s list in The Christology of the Fourth Gospel (lxxiv-lxxviii) is much more detailed and elaborate.

See “Why Yeshua? A Jewish Question,” for a prelude to this article.

Yeshua is the Moses-like Prophet-to-Come, the New Moses, whose agency as the Voice of the Father reveals depths of God unknown or ambiguous in previous revelation.

As you can see from the wording, I am using language from the gospels themselves to describe the benefits of knowing Yeshua. But this is not just theory or theology. Each one of these nine benefits concerns practical matters, things that weigh upon us and are of consequence to everyone on a daily basis. They concern the normal and universal questions and existential longings that require satisfaction.

This week, I will discuss, “What practical difference does it make that Yeshua reveals previously unknown depths of God’s nature and being?”

Universal Questions Addressed in Yeshua’s Teaching

(1) Does God see my pain? (2) Does God see my selfless deeds? (3) Is this present reign of death and meaninglessness the way God will leave things? (4) Do my interpersonal relationships matter to God? (5) Does God ever reward things done for him and for others out of pure love? (6) Does God care about the things I am lacking and desperately need? (7) Is God a stern judge or a hopeful parent? (8) Does God want me to know him? (9) Does God prefer the smart, the strong, the rich, the powerful, and/or the beautiful people? (10) Does God feel emotion or is that beneath him?

The Difference Between Yeshua’s Answers and Other Teachers’ Answers

Yeshua addresses the kind of questions I listed above and does s specifically in his teaching. Other teachers in Judaism and Christianity as well as a myriad of religious perspectives have addressed these and similar questions.

Why should Yeshua’s answers matter?

That is a question about Yeshua’s identity. It is a good question. It deserves more than a short answer. I have written a bit about reasons a Jewish person (or anyone else) might believe that Yeshua is more than a man, that his perspective is worthy of leaving behind other teachers and following him toward the world to come.

I am not primarily addressing the “why believe” question here, but one part of the “what does Yeshua add” to life and faith question. However the simple answer to the “why believe” question is what my book Yeshua in Context is all about. And here is the simple answer: if you encounter the story of Yeshua, which is in the four gospels, you will be able to confront reasons to doubt or believe based on things like internal and external consistency.

In Yeshua in Context, I explain for modern readers what Yeshua was all about, give guidance in understanding and encountering the stories, and suggest ways they give us evidence to believe that Yeshua is the Mystery revealed in human form.

Yeshua on the Existential God-Questions

(1) Does God see my pain?
Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies? And not one of them is forgotten before God. Why, even the hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not; you are of more value than many sparrows.

(2) Does God see my selfless deeds?
Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by them; for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven. . . . your Father who sees in secret will reward you. . . . love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great.

(3) Is this present reign of death and meaninglessness the way God will leave things?
Blessed are you poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. . . . Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted. . . . men will come from east and west, and from north and south, and sit at table in the kingdom of God. . . . from now on I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes. . . . The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field . . . And behold, some are last who will be first, and some are first who will be last. . . . You will be repaid at the resurrection of the just. . . . in my Father’s house are many dwelling places; if it were not so I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you. . . . Abraham said, ‘Son, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish.

(4) Do my interpersonal relationships matter to God?
Every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment . . . So if you are offering your gift at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. . . . If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. And if you lend to those from whom you hope to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to receive as much again. But love your enemies. . . . So whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them; for this is the law and the prophets.

(5) Does God ever reward things done for him and for others out of pure love?
Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by them; for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven. . . . your Father who sees in secret will reward you. . . . He who receives a prophet because he is a prophet shall receive a prophet’s reward, and he who receives a righteous man because he is a righteous man shall receive a righteous man’s reward. And whoever gives to one of these little ones even a cup of cold water because he is a disciple, truly, I say to you, he shall not lose his reward. . . . I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me. . . . Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.

(6) Does God care about the things I am lacking and desperately need?
And why are you anxious about clothing? . . . But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you, O men of little faith? Therefore do not be anxious, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For the Gentiles seek all these things; and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all.

(7) Is God a stern judge or a hopeful parent?
Go and learn what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.’ For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners. . . . Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick; I came not to call the righteous, but sinners. . . . there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance. . . . But while he was yet at a distance, his father saw him and had compassion, and ran and embraced him and kissed him. And the son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you; I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’ But the father said to his servants, ‘Bring quickly the best robe, and put it on him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet; and bring the fatted calf and kill it, and let us eat and make merry; for this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found.’

(8) Does God want me to know him?
But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for such the Father seeks to worship him. . . . I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, that they may all be one; even as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us. . . . All that the Father gives me will come to me . . . No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. . . . It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ Every one who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me.

(9) Does God prefer the smart, the strong, the rich, the powerful, and/or the beautiful people?
Go out quickly to the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in the poor and maimed and blind and lame. . . . Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me; and whoever receives me, receives not me but him who sent me. . . . unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. . . . I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that jyou have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children. . . . If any one would be first, he must be last of all and servant of all. . . . Blessed are the meek.

(10) Does God feel emotion or is that beneath him?
Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom. . . . he rejoices over it more than over the ninety-nine that never went astray. . . . Father, I thank you that it pleased you to do this. . . . the father said to his servants, ‘Bring quickly the best robe, and put it on him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet; and bring the fatted calf and kill it, and let us eat and make merry.’

E.P. Sanders (Judaism: Practice and Belief, 63 BCE – 66 CE) gives us some helpful and thoroughly researched pointers to the identity and character of the Sadducees. Here is my summary from pg. 318:

(1) There is a “high degree of correspondence” between the aristocracy in Judea/Jerusalem and the Sadducean party.

(2) Not all Jerusalem aristocrats were Sadducees “but it may be that all Sadducees were aristocrats.”

(3) We know very little about the Sadducees specifically but much more about aristocrats at the time.

(4) Josephus (Ant. 18:16f.) says that the secret doctrines of the Sadducees were taught only to a few and these were all males.

(5) Ananus is the only person (in the 63 BCE – 66 CE period) Josephus specifically names as a Sadducee. Ananus or Annas questioned Yeshua at one phase of his trials according to John 18:19-23 and was the father-in-law of Caiphas.

(6) The book of Acts suggests that Caiphas was with the Sadducees (Acts 5:17).

(7) While know one knows the origin of the term Sadducee, it may derive from Zadok, priest in the time of David (2 Sam 20:25) and the one whose line was considered the correct one for the priests to descend from after the exile (Ezek 40:46; 43:19; 44:15; 48:11).

(8) Some have suggested another origin for the term Sadducee, from the word for “righteousness” (tzedek).

(9) By the time of the Mishnah, the Sadducees and the Judean aristocracy were insignificant and maybe non-existent.

My summer project will be writing Yeshua for Small Groups, a study and discussion guide you can use in your congregation or group (or start a group).

Releasing this summer will be The Messiah Yeshua Children’s Series Volume 1. The artwork is amazing and books with credible art depicting the life of Yeshua are rare. The storytelling is bringing the actual gospel stories to a young audience.

My fall project will be producing Mark: An Audio-Commentary for all you listeners out there. There are many people who prefer to listen to good material while driving or working.

In 2012? I’m considering things like Disciples with Yeshua or Yeshua in Context II: The Birth and Death of Messiah. Thoughts?

Also, I’m preparing for the June 5, “Eyewitnesses in the Gospels” seminar here in Atlanta. It’s just a half-day seminar. If you’d like to join us, email me at yeshuaincontext at gmail.

–Derek

First, I accept the basic order of Mark, then Matthew, then Luke, and then John.

Second, I currently lean toward Mark Goodacre’s skepticism about the existence of Q (a sayings source thought to be used by both Matthew and Luke).

Third, I like much of Richard Bauckham’s eyewitness theory about Mark and Luke especially (and in a different way, John). I keep in mind the warning Scot McKnight gave me (in an email) to factor in much direct (verbatim) literary dependence from Mark to Matthew to Luke (which he would say undermines some aspects of Bauckham’s theory).

Fourth, I like so far what I know of Bauckham’s theory in Testimony of the Beloved Disciple, but I want to see how Paul Anderson’s work meshes with that (The Fourth Gospel and the Quest for Jesus).

Something like this seems to be going on (for the moment this outline makes sense to me):

Mark, not one of the Twelve or a disciple, writes his gospel first (the first written work on Yeshua’s life perhaps). There is some basis for the idea of Peter as the source through Mark’s overhearing him. Mark has other eyewitness background as well, as per Bauckham. This may be John Mark from Acts.

Matthew, not one of the Twelve (else why would he use Mark?) and perhaps not even named Matthew, adds much sayings material. Where did he get this sayings material? Is Papias’ statement about a (lost) Hebrew Matthew a clue here?

Luke, in the circle of Paul, uses Mark and Matthew and has a free hand in re-ordering sayings especially. Luke also seems to have his own eyewitness information gathered separately from Mark, as per Bauckham.

John, perhaps a disciple but not the John of the Twelve, perhaps the elder John from Papias’ statement, assumes knowledge of Mark and writes a different sort of gospel. I think the Beloved Disciple theory of his identity is believable. Where does John get these long discourses? I would not dismiss them as ahistorical entirely. I think at least there is a possibility that the beloved disciple has certain sayings in his memory that form the core of these long discourses. My reading of Paul Philip Levertoff’s Love and the Messianic Age has me thinking about some ways that a small saying here or there by Yeshua might have been developed into expanded discourses emphasizing the mystical side of Yeshua (Levertoff’s book is not about history or gospel origins, but his comparison of John and Chassidus is simply forming for me a small bit of a theory).

I’m already leaning against some ways of conceiving gospel transmission. Goodacre has me nearly convinced that Q is a too-convenient scholarly chimera. Bauckham has me convinced the form-critical view of a long process of oral tradition is off base. Anderson has me convinced the background relationships between streams in gospel transmission are not as simple as New Testament Introduction books make them out to be.

I will start this series in what may seem an unusual place. I think Richard Bauckham makes good sense beginning his Jesus and the Eyewitnesses here: in the lost writings of one bishop of Hierapolis, the good Papias, whose writings fortunately we at least have in the fragmentary form of quotations in later writers. What can the bishop of Hierapolis tell us about gospel transmission?

Papias was bishop in Hierapolis, not far from Colossae and Laodicea. Hierapolis was on the crossroads between the huge cities of Ephesus in the west and Antioch in Syria in the east as well as on a road between Smyrna and Attalia in Pamphylia. Many travelers would pass through Hierapolis.

Papias wrote a lost work called Exposition of the Logia of the Lord (logia means “sayings”). The work is lost except for quotations from it in later writers, especially in Eusebius of Caesarea (263-339 CE).

When was Papias’ book written? A standard date with evidence from an ancient source is 130 CE. But there is reason to believe this is wrong and that Papias’ work was during the time of Trajan (98-117 CE) and not Hadrian (117-138 CE). Bauckham prefers the date 110 CE. Here is what Papias said, some commentary to help understand it, and why it matters for theories about the formation of the gospels:

I shall not hesitate to put into properly ordered form for you everything I learned carefully in the past from the elders and noted down well, for the truth of which I vouch. For unlike most people I did not enjoy those who have a great deal to say, but those who teach the truth. Nor did I enjoy those who recall someone else’s commandments, but those who remember the commandments given by the Lord to the faith and proceeding from the truth itself. And if by chance anyone who had been in attendance on the elders should come my way, I inquired about the words of the elders — that is, what Andrew or Peter said, or Philip, or Thomas, or James, or John, or Matthew, or any other of the Lord’s disciples, and whatever Aristion and the elder John, the Lord’s disciples, were saying. For I did not think that information from books would profit me as much as information from a living and surviving voice.
–cited in Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.39.3-4.

It is very important, as Bauckham reminds us, that Papias is not talking about something that happened at the time he wrote his account in 110 CE, but some that happened in the past. Bauckham suggests a reasonable date of 80 CE as the rough time period Papias “inquired about” the words of the elders. This makes sense as approximately the same era in which the gospels were written down (except Mark, being earlier).

The point is, Papias has no reason to exaggerate these “modest claims,” as Bauckham calls them. He could easily have been alive at the time of eyewitnesses and made notes about his inquiries into exact words and stories.

Bauckham notes that Papias describes four categories of people he talked to:
(1) Those who had been in attendance on the elders.
(2) The elders themselves, meaning leaders of regions of disciples in Asia Minor.
(3) The Lord’s disciples to whom Papias did not speak.
and (4) the Lord’s disciples John the Elder and Aristion to whom Papias did speak.

In case there is confusion, the difference between (3) and (4) is in the verb. Papias speaks of what those in (3) “said” and what those in (4) “were saying.” This explains why he separated out John the Elder and Aristion from the others.

The identity of John the Elder and the John from the first list of the Lord’s disciples seems apparent: John the Elder is not John the son of Zebedee, one of the Twelve. John the Elder is a different John. Bauckham thinks John the Elder is the same as the Beloved Disciple and author of the Gospel of John.

Whether that is correct or not is irrelevant for the purpose of this discussion.

What Bauckham is trying to show here is that Papias had a certain sense of historiographical integrity. It was about the importance of “the living and surviving voice.”

Bauckham will go on to show that the same principles of historiographical integrity are evident in the gospels, not only in Luke’s prologue, but in the use of named eyewitnesses. Bauckham has more than circumstantial evidence to back up his claim. He has clear and discernible patterns regarding named characters in the gospels.

For the purpose of this first installment, let me simply say that Papias wrote a book we wish we had in our possession. In this book he recorded the reminiscences and sayings of Yeshua that he gathered from two different chains of transmission:

THE DIRECT CHAIN: From (1) the Lord’s Disciples Aristion and John the Elder to (2) the disciples of the elders to (3) Papias.

THE INDIRECT CHAIN: From (1) the Lord’s Disciples (Andrew, Peter, Philip, Thomas, James, John, Matthew) to (2) a possible intervening stage to (3) the elders (still living) to (4) the disciples of the elders to (5) Papias.

In Part 2, we’ll consider ideas of historiography from the time of Papias and the evangelists. We’ll consider the red herring of Form Criticism and its assumption of a long chain of oral tradition. We’ll discuss Oral Tradition versus Eyewitness Testimony. We’ll look at some evidence that the evangelists shared Papias’ concerns about historiography. Most importantly, we’ll consider the evidence that the gospels were written in the time of living memory and not from some abstract chain of oral tradition which took on a life of its own.

Only two out of four gospels have birth narratives about Yeshua. And the two birth narratives we have are so very different. They agree on major points, twelve of them, which I will list, but they are so different in other ways. It has often been said, and I think this is valid, that the gospel tradition developed backwards: the Passion and Resurrection narratives were first. Then the miracles, deeds, and sayings traditions developed. Last were the birth narratives. Childhood stories about Yeshua were not included until later gospels in the second century, gospels which the Yeshua-communities did not accept as apostolic in authority.

Meanwhile, we have the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke. They have agreements such as Yeshua’s Davidic origins, his virginal conception, and his birth at Bethlehem. They have major differences which are often smoothed over with little thought about the difficulties in harmonizing them. Luke doesn’t mention a trip to Egypt. Matthew doesn’t mention that Joseph and Mary were from Nazareth.

The Yeshua-story has birth issues. How reliable are these narratives? Should we who accept them as inspired tradition expect the world to subscribe to them as history? What is at stake in the birth story of the Messiah?

From the outset, I have to say that in a less-than-fifteen-minute talk on the birth of Messiah, I can only summarize large issues. Let me say as well that accepting tradition and theology from the Bible does not depend on historical verifiability. We do not have to limit our faith to things that have strong historical evidence. If we believe that God inspired a set of traditions coming from ancient Israel — the Hebrew Bible — and from the early Yeshua-movement — the New Testament — then our faith is not in historical reconstruction. I highly recommend Luke Timothy Johnson’s chapter in The Historical Jesus: Five Views for those who want more information about this approach.

So, let me begin by stirring the waters and showing some of the problems. These are problems precisely for people who do take the tradition seriously and who read with attention to details.

Consider Mark 3:21 and 31-35. Mary and the brothers of Yeshua come to Capernaum to remove Yeshua from a crowd scene. They heard people saying Yeshua is “beside himself.” They have doubts or concerns about what Yeshua is doing.

But wait! Is this the same Mary to whom the angel spoke in Luke 1:26-38? She was told that this child would be born without a human father, that he would be conceived by the Holy Spirit, and that he will reign as king. How could Mary have doubts about such a son? How could Yeshua’s brothers not understand? How could this all not have become known earlier? Why, when Yeshua comes back to Nazareth in Luke 4:16-30 do his townspeople not know he is a miraculously conceived man destined to be king?

I’m not saying there are not possible ways of understanding both lines of tradition. I’m just saying: we have a tension here between Mary’s knowing the origins of Yeshua and yet doubting him. Mary is not among the disciples before the resurrection, but only after.

And that is another way of showing the tension. It is the resurrection of Yeshua that quite obviously changed the view of the disciples and others about him. How could his greatness have gone relatively unknown until then in light of angels appearing and a virginal conception?

And let’s look at the birth issues surrounding Yeshua another way. The stories in Matthew and Luke are very different. Some believe they can be harmonized. Others do not.

Here is Matthew’s story in outline form: an angel appeared to Joseph in an unspecified location to explain the virginal conception, Yeshua was born in Bethlehem, magi came looking for him and this caused Herod to slaughter babes in Bethlehem, the Yeshua-family fled to Egypt, and after Herod died they came back but settled in Nazareth to hide from Herod.

Here is Luke’s story in outline, leaving out the John the Baptist material: an angel appeared to Mary in Nazareth to explain the virginal conception, the Yeshua-family came to Bethlehem for a census registration and Yeshua was born there, the family came to Jerusalem for a time to fulfill the Torah, and then they returned to Nazareth after the census and obligations in Jerusalem.

Can these stories be harmonized into one account? Some think they can and would place the order roughly this way: Luke 1, Matthew 1, Luke 2, and untold story of a return to Bethlehem, and then Matthew 2 (Raymond Brown mentions this common harmonization in The Birth of Messiah in a footnote on pg. 35). Here is the possible order of events if the stories go together:
…an angel appeared to Mary in Nazareth to explain the virginal conception
…an angel appeared to Joseph in an unspecified location to explain the virginal conception
…the Yeshua-family came to Bethlehem for a census registration
…Yeshua was born there
…the family came to Jerusalem for a time to fulfill the Torah
…the family returned to Bethlehem after Jerusalem for a time, though no gospel mentions it
…magi came looking for him in Bethlehem and this caused Herod to slaughter babes
…the Yeshua-family fled to Egypt
…after Herod died they came back but settled in Nazareth to hide from Herod

This harmonized account is possible. So why have any doubts about it?

First, what are the sources of Matthew’s and Luke’s information? It is not possible that Joseph could be a source. Every indication is that Joseph is dead before the resurrection. If Mary is the source, how could the two accounts be so different?

Second, how can we harmonize two accounts that are so different? Luke knows nothing of a flight to Egypt. Matthew knows nothing of Nazareth as the original home of Joseph and Mary. And why would Matthew omit the Jerusalem scenes, since it is Matthew’s purpose to show Yeshua as a fulfiller of Torah?

Having considered the difficulty in harmonizing, now let us consider what the two accounts have in common. Both Raymond Brown in The Birth of the Messiah and Joseph Fitzmeyer in The Gospel According to Luke I-IX list the common points. I will use Fitzmeyer’s basic points:
(1) Yeshua’s birth is related to the reign of Herod.
(2) Mary is a virgin betrothed to Joseph and they do not live together.
(3) Joseph is of the house of David.
(4) An angel announces Yeshua’s birth.
(5) Yeshua is recognized as a son of David.
(6) He is conceived by the Holy Spirit.
(7) Joseph is not involved in the conception.
(8) The name “Yeshua” is given by God through angels.
(9) Yeshua is proclaimed beforehand a Savior.
(10) Yeshua is born after Mary and Joseph come to live together.
(11) He is born at Bethlehem.
(12) Yeshua settles in Nazareth.

I am not saying that these points must all be taken as verifiable history simply because they are common to both gospels. But consider: the two stories in Matthew and Luke are completely independent. How did they develop? And why do they have similarities as well as differences?

The only reasonable conclusion, with coincidence being unreasonable on so many specific points of convergence, is that Matthew and Luke independently wrote birth narratives based on earlier sources. These could be oral or written. They cannot have exactly the same sources or, if they do, they took a lot of freedom in filling in the gaps.

The possibilities of how these earlier sources could have become known is too complex to consider here. It is possible and even likely that Mary gave testimony in the early Yeshua-movement. But the tension remains: if Mary made her story known, how did the divergences develop?

And the most important issue is the tradition that Yeshua was conceived by the Holy Spirit. Often called the “Virgin Birth,” this story should more properly be called the “Virginal Conception.” How did this tradition develop?

Here is one theory, one I will reject, but which even we believers in the gospels should be aware of:
…Those who came to believe through the resurrection of Yeshua that he was the Son of God realized a problem.
…Yeshua could not have suddenly “become” Son of God at his resurrection.
…So he had to be Son of God before the resurrection, even if his identity was not widely recognized.
…But it does not seem that someone with a human father could be Son of God in the full sense like Yeshua is.
…Therefore, he must not have had a human father.

From here, some people think, early believers turned to pagan myths about divine conceptions.

Some others think that Isaiah 7:14 was interpreted in Hellenistic Judaism as being about a virginal conception. But there is no evidence for this and linguistic evidence is actually to the contrary.

As Raymond Brown says, though, there is no reason to believe that early Yeshua-followers would know about or make use of pagan myths to solve a puzzle about Yeshua’s identity.

But where did the story come from. It is easy to think it may have come from Mary. But why didn’t Mark use it? And why did John skip the birth altogether and solve the origins of Yeshua question another way, with the idea that he is the forever-pre-existent Word of God?

Some people think the pre-existence idea about Yeshua’s identity is not compatible with the virginal conception idea. I don’t agree.

We who believe in the gospels as inspired tradition do not have to assume the evangelists got all their stories “right” in terms of history. As we see in many cases, it is possible for inspired scriptures to have discrepancies.

But the virginal conception is a teaching about which we will have to say that: (a) it cannot be verified historically, (b) it comes from an earlier tradition than the gospels, (c) it has possible sources in eyewitness testimony, (d) it is hard to explain tensions in the divergent accounts, (e) it is hard to explain tensions in the seeming lack of faith by Mary prior to the resurrection, and (f) yet there is no good explanation for it by which it might have been invented fictitiously.

The birth story of Messiah is a good example of why our faith is not based on rationalism or mere historical investigation. History does matter, but it is not the final court of belief. This is not only true in religion, but in all matters of what people believe about life.

Those of us who believe Yeshua is the pre-existent Word of God have no trouble believing that he was conceived by the Holy Spirit. We can simply wonder about the struggles of the evangelists to find out how it all came about and the apparently confusing sources and traditions through which they sought to go back, long after the fact, and find out how Yeshua entered the world.