| NT Gospel Passages |
| NT Gospel Passages |
NEW TESTAMENT PASSAGES - GOSPELS Mat 1:23 [TEXT] . This is one of the major Christmas verses, and really warms your Christian heart. It refers back to Isaiah 7:14 and attracts Bibical debate on 'a virgin' like bears to honey (elsewhere discussed on this site)! But if you use the normal hebrew 'young woman' in the Isa 7:14 passage, and then compare to Isaiah 8:4, you'll notice something obvious. Isaiah in both passages is predicting Assyria attacking Israel in approximately 2 years. In the chapter 7 version, it's the time from birth to eating honey and butter (which very young babies can't digest). The chapter 8 version uses the same child but being able to say 'father' or 'mother' ... again about 2 years. In between, Israel would bask in visions of 'peace' (calling the child Emmanuel). You can also find a similar concept by Micah, who lived at the same time as Isaiah (Mic 5:2). Interestingly only Matthew and Luke claim the virgin concept, and both were greek readers from the Septuagint's 'virgin' passage. There's also a theological problem with this, and that is Jesus' statements. Jesus makes frequent use of his 'father' being God, and thus himself as a 'son'. It's difficult to figure what he meant (versus the NT writer claims), but there's almost no OT evidence of a literal son of God, except for hints in the Isa 7:14 / Psa 2:7 passages. If Jesus' followers made the literal 'son of God' shift (apparently with little difficulty?), either Jesus would have to be using the Isaiah/Psalms verses, or the pseudepigraphia (which contain a literal 'son of God'). Neither are good choices, one implying Jesus appealed to the greek Septuagent, and the other suggesting he used Enoch or the Assumption of Moses. Mat 2:7 [TEXT] If you don't believe the Jesus' birth stories, this account of Herod and the wisemen would probably support your view. But not so fast! At least for me, I've always thought Herod's re-building the Temple as odd. I've no problem concerning the multitude of Roman-related projects. But the Temple? He did have his jewish wives, I guess, though he was Arab from Idumea/Edom. But this story is so odd, it almost sounds true! Herod (along with much of Jerusalem) was apocalyptic! It's kind of ironic, since as 'King', the apocalyptic messiah would displace him (and thus Herod's baby targeting). But 'if' he DID believe in the prophesies, Herod would be 'toast' anyway, right?! Josephus, in Antiquities 15.387, also notes the oddness of Herod's reconstructed temple. Herod is quoted as 'rendering complete his religion'. This phrasing is interesting since 'complete' in greek is 'teleios', which was very common in the mystery religions of the time (e.g. the three 'wise-men'?). More significantly it connected to the expected apocalypse in Jerusalem (Essenes/Quran prophesied a new temple at the end-time). 'Perfecting' or 'completing' oneself was needed in preparation of the end-time. Do a search of 'perfect' in the NT; you WILL be surprised. But think about the massive 46-year-construction of the Temple with 11,000 workers. Was Herod effectively constructing the Messiah's landing zone? Think about the necessary taxation, apparently accepted by the jewish leadership. Plus, throughout the gospels, and especially Stephan in Acts, the Temple 'seems' to be a MAJOR argument (with the Qumran-ians refusing it entirely). The wording here, though, DOES tell you they were calculating a very specific 'end-time'. Given a 'subtracting back' to a 2-year range of birth (Herod definitely had it down), obviously they had REALLY nailed down the messiah's appearance. I'd assume the calculation would assume so many years of youth before messiah-ship. 30? Certainly the propensity of Pentecostal crowds to sign on to Jesus, suggests a widely regarded target-date (with the disciples heading straight for the Temple afterward; figure that). Mat 12:18 [TEXT] .Here, Matthew uses Isa 42:1-4 for Jesus to fulfill. Frankly I have no idea how Matthew made the connection (shrivelled-hand man a gentile?, sabboth-breaking?, secret healing?); it's as if he felt it was time for another OT fulfillment in his writing. I mention it here, because as you go through the gospels, you have a hard time pinning down what Jesus' assigned as his role. See my discussion of Gen 18:25 for why there might be an explanation. Mat 16:13-26 Mar 8:27-9:1 [TEXT] . This is the 'Peter/Rock' passage in Matthew, with surrounding verses also in Mark's parallel. As you probably know, Matthew has the 'Rock' verses (plus 'son of the living God); Mark (and Luke and John) don't. Why? First, as I've discussed elsewhere, Mark is likely written around the time of Paul's earlier letters (similar syntax) ... maybe 55ce or so. Matthew was likely written later and uses much of Mark as a source. Based on this, we'd presume Matthew 'remembers' something Mark (or his source) does not. Being a 'rock' sounds pretty important. So, does this mean Peter wasn't Mark's source?? Actually, there's more to the story. In the next verse (v19), Matthew gives Peter 'the key(s)' to the kingdom, giving him (singular) the binding and loosing (detail religious rule making). So far so good. Now turn to Mat 18:18), where you have a similar binding/ loosing, but this time it's from Jesus to his disciples (plural). BOTH ... are associated with 'the church' (rock-building, and sinning-brother-relations-rules). Further, 'the church' and 'keys' are nowhere else to be found in any of the gospels. And lastly, the greek syntax-dating is similar between Matthew and Ephesians (church as a source of authority). When you consider that Matthew is the origin of 'the rock' and 'the keys', the likely time of writing, and his odd addition of 'church' language, I'd guess Matthew was appointing the post-Jesus source of authority (so much for 'James' and the other 'brothers'). Humorously, I get the feeling in Acts (and the Pauline letters), that Peter didn't even know about 'his keys' in his pocket, or his 'rock-iness'. Hadn't read Matthew, probably. For your curiousity about 'the keys', also review Luke 11:52, where the principle becomes more apparent. Also see 1st Corinthians for more 'Peter' discussion. Mat 16:13 (more!) [TEXT] If you read this passage in the KJV or as here, the YLT, you won't see any problem. But apparently the early Byzantine group of copyists saw a problem ... and thus likely added 'I' into the text to confirm that Jesus was indeed talking about himself ... not a separate 'Son of Man'. The more 'correct' manuscripts don't have the 'I', and so the modernish translations leave it out (Darby kind of waffles). If you consult Mark's version (Mar 8:27), it doesn't even include the 'Son of Man' phrase, instead using 'me'. Luke's version (Luk 9:18) follows Mark. Now, at the time, the 'Son of Man' was expected 'real soon', along with the 'Kingdom of God' (Daniel 7). The only question was simply identifying him. Alternatively, per Numbers, a 'king from the east' was expected as well (this was the 'Star' prophesy, which Josephus happily assigned to the Roman army commander Vespacian, and later the Pharisee leadership assigned to Titus his son). Of course, the zealous jews thought the 'king from the east' would destroy Rome, but found out they were unbelievably wrong (thus destroying the Temple and later, Jerusalem). But knowing the identity of the 'Son of Man' was a hot topic at the time, and Matthew seems to lead off with the question of the Son of Man. Matthew doesn't get far, since the next verse begins listing all the competitors to 'the Son of Man'. And so, the question subtly shifts to identifying who Jesus was. The question in my mind is 'what happened'? There was no real reason for Matthew to 'add' the Son-of-Man identifier. Why put it there? Why not just add it to 'the list'. My guess is that at the time, the 'Son of Man' was NOT the same as the 'Messiah'. One, the Son of Man, came down from God, bringing final judgment to mankind, and having divine powers. The other (the Davidic messiah) was a powerful king who would destroy the nasty gentiles, namely the Romans. I suspect Mark didn't know the fate of Jerusalem (and so, a Davidic messiah was still possible), but Matthew did know. Matthew's job was to equate the 'Son of Man' to the 'Messiah', thereby avoiding the problem of Jerusalem being destroyed. EXTRA: Today, we happily equate just about everything about Jesus ... messiah, 'star and scepter', prophet, Son of God, Son of Man, and so forth, no matter WHAT the prophesy was talking about. Those jews at the time just obviously 'didn't get it'. Jesus TRIED to tell them. But noooooo, they (and the disciples, Paul, and just about everyone else) thought the end was at hand. 2,000 years later, we're a WHOLE lot more educated, and SMART too!! We'd never make THAT mistake. Yep. Mat 25:27 [TEXT] This verse in theory comes from 'Q', with its sister at Luk 19:23. Both versions are critical of a servant who is given money but simply protects it from loss (the money-lenders never being classed with the sinful tax-collectors). The oddness of the account is the master's anger, who acidly points out that the servant 'could' have at least put it in the bank for some interest. Plus the punishment seems to fit a crime FAR worse than murder (the 'outer' darkness, along with dental problems). Is this the same Jesus who celebrated the law (no usery), and the dangers of being rich? If you check the greek syntactical patterns for 'Q' in Matthew, they oddly match Romans and other Pauline writings. I'd of expected a match to a more jewish source. The only explanation I can imagine is the Romans 'penman' also translated 'Q' into greek, presumably from aramaic. Doesn't this passage really speak to 'who' was Jesus? In all of my analyses, I've started with the assumption that as a minimum, 'Q' reflected Jesus. However, that creates the curiousity of most of the main players (e.g. Mark, John, Paul, Peter, Jude, Pastoral-guy, Hebrews-guy, and Revelations-guy) all CAREFULLY avoiding any hint of 'the real Jesus'. How so? If indeed, 'Q' was translated into greek fairly late, that would explain the other writers, right? But then you have the difficulty of most 'inspired' writers only knowing greek (which does seem to be the case). I don't know. Even today, I'd be reluctant to invest too much with uninsured money-lenders. I know, I know ... you're supposed to ignore the story in favor of the meaning, right? But, 'outer darkness'?? Mat 27:53 [TEXT] . This passage is unique to MAT, with most of the imagery and details very similar to the jewish pseudepigraphia. I have yet to read a commentary or hear a pastor adaquately explain this. The curiousity, is that the 'coming from the graves' precedes Jesus by three 'jewish' days, at least per MAT. But read closely ... 'after his rising'. In another section of this site, we discuss the post-resurrection details, and their conflicting nature ... as if the post-appearances were a later add-on. But taken literally (and why not?), the newly resurrected must have been pacing their graves, waiting for Jesus' to come out of his. Right? Mat 28:17 [TEXT] As before, (1) I'm not at all convinced that the NT is 'inspired' but (2) I am convinced that the accounts match believers who DID 'see something'. The problem is trying to figure out what they saw, since the accounts frequently don't match up. Here, we have Jesus' final appearance in Galilee, per Matthew. The curiousity, is that 'some doubted'. Plural. About 'doubted', if you're not sure, also read Mat 14:31 (same usage). Now, compare the Matthew 'doubters' account to John 20:25, where Thomas doesn't believe. In the Thomas case, it's right after Jesus' resurrection, with the disciples huddling in a locked room and Jesus 'popping in'. Other than the fact one account is in Jerusalem, and the other is on a 'mount' in Galilee, what's the issue? Well, in the John account, Jesus has just given the TEN disciples the 'Holy Spirit' (Joh 20:22). That's everyone except Judas and Thomas. More significantly, he gave the ten the power to 'bind and loose sins' (i.e. write the rules). But when Jesus is ready for 'lift-off' in Matthew, 'some doubt'. Huh? The same ones with 'the Holy Spirit' and forgiving sins? Now the obvious answer is that one or both of the accounts can't be simultaneously true (and certainly not from God, since God doesn't lie per the Old Testament). Ok. But on further reflection, you wonder about both accounts having one or more 'doubters'. Why? I'd have to assume that indeed there WERE doubters. And more specifically, AFTER Jesus was killed, but had re-appeared. Think about it. Did they doubt Jesus was standing in front of them? What? Mar 2:14 [TEXT] In this passage, Mark, the earliest of the gospel writers references Levi of Alpheus. Later in Mar 3:18, Matthew has taken Levi's place, and James is now associated with Alpheus. Matthew the writer picks up Mark's verse, changes the Levi name to Matthew (Mat 9:9). Luke (Luke 5:27) picks up Mark's story, keeps the 'Levi', but then makes Levi the host to the tax-gatherers shin-dig (which I suppose would surprise Matthew the writer who presumably should know). Now, what is interesting is Mark ... the initial Mar 2:14 is quite early in syntax. The Mar 3:18 syntax is much later, matching Luke 6:15 which is also late. Even more stranger, is that the Matthew equivalent (Mat 10:1) is ALSO late (around time of Peter/James). Plus the Mark mystery is how Andrew got moved down in the Mark's list (both Matthew and Luke associate Andrew with Simon; Mark places Simon/Peter first but not noticeably). Tradition had Mark as Peter's secretary, plus I don't think jewish Matthew would copy gentile Mark, unless Mark was from jewish Peter. Now, to simplify matters (and move on), most Bible dictionaries simply assign Alpheus to both Matthew and James. Much easier! Mar 4:12 [TEXT] Taken literally, this verse has Jesus not wanting 'they' (the jews?) to be saved (whatever that meant at the time). If you view Jesus as apocalyptic, this would be a great 'nail in the coffin' (nail that puppy shut!). But just reading it, the last phrase appears to not be original. Indeed the equivalent parallels in Mat and Luke don't use the phrase, instead back-ref'ing to Isa 6:9-10. Of course, both Matthew (Mat 13:13-15) and Luke (Acts 28:27) were likely AFTER the destruction of Jerusalem, and so maybe doing some cleanup work? The phrase does seem a bit mean for Jesus. And, it also appears to fly in the face of all the explanations of why the jews didn't believe (hard-hearted, blind, and forever un-smart). Another curiousity is the word 'turn'. In the OT, it's used as it means (reverse course!). But, by the time of Jesus', it's common use was 'conversion' as from gentile to jewish (and so Darby translates). Today's readers probably just assume it means 'repent', with the NLT trying hard to push in that direction! Actually, the more I look at the phrase here, along with Mark's healing/forgive-sins equivalency, I wonder if there was another Isaiah version. The two concepts seem to anchor 'Jesus' in Mark's account. And 'if' Mark was reflecting Peter (which I suspect is true), I then wonder if Jesus also was using that same version (aramaic?). I doubt Peter just made things up (unlike the apparent examples in Luke/Matthew). Mark 12:24-25 (also Mat 12:29-30) [TEXT] . First, read the next passage's discussion (to avoid repetition!). I find this passage v24-25 absolutely fascinating for two reasons: (1) You WON'T find the quote in what 'we' think are 'the writings', and (2) You WILL find the passage in both the pseudepigraphical books of Enoch and Baruch2 (concepts of after-death-no-marriage, and as-angels). Now your commentaries deftly skip over this little item, by saying that Jesus was referring to the 'meaning' of the writings. Ah, yes. Jesus' listeners meaning'd no-marriage-after-death and as-angels from the OT, right? If you DID read the next passage discussion first(!), this no-marriage-angel-passage gives us more clues about the theoretical 'Q' source. 'Q' was likely comfortable with 'Enoch', and very similar to Jude. Plus by extension, probably both Matthew and Luke were similarly comfortable, since they would know its likely source. I say this since Matthew and Luke also use other pseudepigraphical concepts as well (strongly personified 'Holy Spirit', levels of heaven/paradise, etc). The Luke version (Luke 20:34-36) is even MORE interesting. First, he's smart enough not to reference 'the writings' as the source of after death issues. But more importantly, he qualifies the becoming-angels part ('accounted worthy to obtain that age' YLT). I guess both Matthew and Mark missed that little problem! I'd assume the qualifier was not in the 'Q' source (nor Enoch/Baruch2 for that matter). By the way: The phrase 'worthy to obtain THAT AGE' opens up one MORE can of worms, so to speak. The concept of 'ages' that one aspired to was heavily embedded in the pseudepigraphic writings. You could, however, argue the post-excilic OT writings were similar, no? Mark 12:26 (also Mat 22:32) [TEXT] . This passage is also little odd. Jesus uses grammar to prove the resurrection. If Jesus were a rabbi at the time (which is likely), the argument wouldn't be unusual. The quote comes from Exodus 3:6. What isn't shown in the english translations, is that the verb 'am' is NOT actually in the hebrew. As a result, rabbis at the time (at least per later writings) argued whether the sentence was in the 'past' tense, or the 'present'. So, where we see Jesus 'proving' the resurrection using the Torah (which had more authority), Jesus is actually expressing his opinion of the grammar. If you want to pursue this issue further, compare Exo 3:6 to Exo 3:15-16 in the hebrew, where the pattern is more obvious (also the NET translational note). Ah, but the plot thickens! Per the syntactical patterns, Mark is clearly earlier than Matthew, who also uses the passage, almost verbatim. Mark appears to have been greek, and per tradition, used Peter's sermons. Lucky for Mark, the Septuagent or greek version of the OT DOES have the verb 'is' (present tense), thus fitting the resurrection argument! And so, Mark adds the Jesus quote 'ye then go greatly astray'(Jesus' form of 'duh!'). But there is more! Mark, per the syntactical analysis, was composed in two sections (actually three, if you include chap 16). The early section didn't include approximately chapters 10-15. The latter chapters 'date' AFTER Matthew and Luke. This is why you can see scholars arguing Mark both before and after Matthew. So, in theory, the Mark quote (in the 'late' section) is likely an expansion of the Matthew quote (Mark reading the LXX and adding 'duh'!). This makes considerably more sense, since Mark wouldn't likely know of the rabbinical discussion concerning the grammatical tense (Matthew likely having a jewish background). But that still begs the question, why would Jesus use a rabbinical argument to support resurrection? My guess is that he didn't. Why? It doesn't fit. Even if Jesus were a normal rabbi, stooping to that type of argument seems out of character? By the Way: Luke also uses this section (Luke 20:37), but summarizes the Exodus passage without quoting it. In theory then, the rabbinic argument originated with the theoretical 'Q' author. If so, this would give us a good clue on who 'Q' must have been: a Pharasee, likely a scribe, familiar with rabbinic discussions (see also the previous passage on v24-25). Luke 3:36 [TEXT] This is in Luke's generations of Jesus. The unusual issue (besides not matching Matthew AT ALL), is that it doesn't match Gen 10:24 (Genesis is missing Cainan), and Gen 11:12 (Selah is the son of Arphaxad). If, however you check the Septuagent (LXX), you'll find the answers to both mis-matches. Now, the question I have is why the differences between the massoret ('ours') and the LXX (Luke's)? Surely, by the time of Jesus, they had worked out all the various generations lists, including even 'numerology' as well. I've read that the LXX generation lists expanded life-times (and people), to push Noah and the flood back beyond the Egyptian histories at the time (Manetho & greek Alexandria). To me, that sounds odd ... as if no one would notice?? Of course, it was the LXX that the apostles were largely quoting. Paul (more likely Timothy) said the 'scriptures' were God-breathed [TEXT], so the LXX couldn't be wrong, right? The LXX was the inspired one. There is an interesting principle here. The penchant for literal dating of the hebrew writings, trying to position either the flood or creation, has been a 'test of wills' going back before Christ. When the english Bible came along, they nailed creation to a specific year, little dreaming that they were competing with the Egyptian record keeping. By the way: If you read 1 Enoch 10:11-12 you'll find 'prophesied' 70 generations from Enoch to 'the day of judgment'. This just 'happens' to exactly match the Lukian generations list. Add that to the Daniel predictions and Book of Jubilees, all of which 'many' scholars say are written about the same period of time. Hmmmm. Luke 13:1-5 [TEXT] This is one of those odd NT passages that kind of leaves you wondering. Only Luke mentions it. Jesus responds to two events that jews at the time presumably assigned to God. Some Galileans has been ignomously killed by Pilate with their blood 'mixed with sacrifices'. And eighteen people had been killed, when the Siloam tower collapsed in Jerusalem. The assumption seems to have been, that both groups were more sinful than their respective compatriots. Jesus says 'nay', and then suggests the same punishment for his listeners, should they not repent. I accidentally mentioned this passage to a God-does-everything-for-the-best Christian. Before I had gotten to Jesus' response, my friend had made the disciples' assumption concerning God's involvement in the two events, but with a twist. Instead of the galileans or crushed Jerusalem-ites being extra sinful, he assumed the more modern 'God-does-everything-for-the-best' rationale. This assumption surprised me. First, although he was a life-time Christian, he wasn't that familiar with the details of Jesus' teachings (nor I). And second, the passage 'seems' to match the bumper-sticker saying 'S__t happens' (i.e. no divine or personal payback). Jesus does, however, jump the A<>B but B=A logic-rules, suggesting that 's__t' WILL happen, absent repentence. Interestingly, the idea of 'suffering' seems to be the main theological issue these days. I never really thought Jesus might lean on the side of the random event. For God, falling towers and nasty rulers are essentially 'all in an earthly day' ... but personal repentence is the REAL issue. EXTRA CREDIT: If you track Jesus' teaching, he seems to have moved from the 'Repent or die!!' theology (as if they could avoid death at the end-time), to the 'Father-Knows-Best' theology (worry not; be a flower!). And so today, you have your pastors-from-hell group, versus your pastors-trust-the-Father group. Our pastor seems to be in the latter group. But sometimes I wonder if instead, there might have been literally TWO Jesus-teachers (meaning, one of the accounts of Jesus either might not have happened or represented a radically different perspective). The 'repent' teaching mainly tracks back to the OT prophets, along with the eminent end-time. The 'Father-Knows-Best' theology tracks to the Psalms, along with the pseudepigraphia just before Jesus' time. I wouldn't be surprised if, at the time, one represented the influential John-the-Baptist group (fire and brimstone and nothing less!), versus the Jerusalem-based apostles (who seemed to include a LOT of pseudepigraphia concepts)? Of course, then you have 'Paul' (who ignored 'both'). Luke 24:44 [TEXT] Here, Jesus has just finished a delightful fish dinner, (accompanied by delicious bees' wax, if you subscribe to the KJV/YLT etc). Yummy. He's just back from the dead after 3 days. I assume the implication is that he still has his previous body, which has become starved. Anyway, the issue here is the inclusion of 'Psalms'. In his previous post-resurrection meal (v27), he only uses 'Moses and the prophets'. Obviously, on the way back to Jerusalem, Jesus remembered to add Psalms (or a subsequent scribe?). By the Way: 'Psalms' in the early OT groupings was almost always the first book in the 'Kethuvim' or 'Writings'. And so it's surmised that like 'Moses' being the Torah, and 'Jeremiah' being the prophets, 'Psalms' was an informal name of the 'Writings'. John (the book) At our church on Sunday evenings, we've been studying a series of 'Jesus encounters' in the gospel of John. The discussions are good, as the evening sun quietly retreats into the westward canyons. But oddly, each 'John-story' seems 'mucked up'. In other words, without too much effort, you can easily see so many problems in the flow, that any jewish person at the time would have literally seen humor in the story. It would not have survived the 'smell' test of credibility. I'd already concluded the gospel of John was incompatible with the synoptics. Even worse, John's text is syntactically over-edited, and thus it's very difficult to distinguish the 'early' text (which likely exists) from the 'late' text (which is also likely). But having looked at each successive John-story, I wonder if 'John' is busily repairing the messianic theology after it failed (and it obviously did). Each John-story seems to have a 'correcting point'. Truthfully, I'm not really sure. But the darkening Sedona canyons are sure beautiful. John 1:2 [TEXT] John's 'Word', especially verse 1, is well known and often memorized. As a concept, this is 'it' ... you have a hint in 1 John 1:1 but it's not much different from Paul (Phi 2:16). What is so interesting is that the jews at the time had virtually the same idea ... God as the word or 'logos'. This isn't too hard to figure out ... Genesis 1 has God creating the world with his 'word' eg verse 3 "and God saith, `Let light be;' and light is" (YLT). So, what's the issue with verse 2? It's the first word ... in greek 'autos'. In the more exacting translations, you'll see 'the one' or 'the same', since it's referring back to 'the Word'. In the more modernish (and theologically astute) translations, you'll see 'He', essentially connecting the dots for you. You don't actually get a clear 'Jesus' connection in greek until the latter part of verse 10, where it 'appears' to repeat v3. Now, I don't exactly know what came from the original author (this section syntactically 'dates' much later). But the first part of John 1 appears to be a traditional jewish poem (instead of Christian). I'd suspect the Jesus version begins in v9, positioning Jesus similar in concept to God (and thus so much repetition). By the way: The greeks also had their 'logos' inherent in each man, with striving toward a perfection or harmony of logos. John 1:16-17 [TEXT] This is where Paul strolled into the room, harmonizing with John's intro (he still had his body). It's almost as if the two were one and the same (or the Holy Spirit was). Actually the syntactical patterns in Ephesians 1-2 are very similar to John 1, and share almost the same concepts. Both are also 'late dated' syntactically. On the other hand ... Much of the rest of John's syntax is similar to Matthew and both may have originated from the aramaic (Revelations is similar). So how did 'Ephesians' show up in John, and so different? Well, you probably know of the discussion from Eusebius about 'John-confusion' in Ephesus, with there even being 'two' Johns. Judging from the greek patterns, I'd bet the original John gospel was 'updated' (you can easily find sections likely inserted, maybe to enhance the writing). Was it the 'other' John?? Did the 'other John' finish up 'John', as well as Ephesians for Paul? That'd be my guess. Ah, but there is 'more' (of course). If you analyze Revelations, the latter part better matches Matthew, not the Johnines. The earlier part of Revelations comes closer to 'John' but is fragmented (the syntax). Where does it 'break'? That would be where the 'seals' begin repeating themselves at chapter 7. This suggests to me that the gospel writer may have written the original 'second' vision in Revelations. The 'later' first vision (and bishop's letter to his churches) is likely the same guy who 'packaged' John, wrote the Johnine epistles, and finished up Ephesians. Busy guy. Oh, but there's a final problem ... the 'koine-ness' of the greek in Revelation is pretty 'koine'! The early writer Origen was convinced 'John' and 'Revelations' had to have two different writers. Hmmm. John 3 (Nicodemus) This is the story of Nicodemus and the well known phrase 'You must be born again'. The whole story seems to hinge on a dual meaning of 'again' vs 'from above'. And so, Nicodemus dutifully plays the foil, acting dumb, so that Jesus can explain the obvious. There's several problems with the account. (1) The aramaic doesn't have the dual meaning, and thus the story is not likely from Jesus talking to another rabbi. It would only 'fit' among greek listeners (in Ephesus?). And (2), the concept of being 'twice born' only shows up in this conversation, which only Nicodemus was presumably privy to. So as a jewish Christian, you'd of been just as surprised as Nicodemus, since there's nothing like it in the OT, the LXX, the Pseudepigraphia, or for that matter the Dead Sea Scrolls. So, where'd it come from? Well, first, the greek in John is most similar to Mark and periodically Matthew. But in John 3, the syntax switches over to a Lukian-pattern (returning to Mark/Mat in John 4). That's clue #1. Clue #2 can be found in 1st John. Most commentaries associate 1st John with the gospel of John, due to a shared vocabulary/theology. Interestingly, the syntax patterns in 1st John closely match the 'pre-final' version of the gospel of John, but the theology emphasizes an immediate apocalysm (of course, being wrong). My guess is, from the apocalysm and greek syntax patterns of both, (1) 1st John clearly expects 'the end' and likely is the gospel-of-John-writer, in the version prior to the Jesus-conversations with his disciples (and John 21). Secondly, the final version of John builds over top 1st John but narrows down the theology to Jesus as a son-of-man deity, downplaying apocalysm (didn't happen). The born-again portion of John deals with Jesus as born human but a deity, and seems to have a separate source. The dualism is then applied to believers, taking advantage of a greek double meaning. As a greek in Ephesus, I'd have been impressed. Today? I don't think most pastors view their 'brood' as literal children of God. 'Children of God'?? Come on. They can't even agree on the worship music. John 11:1-44 This is the story of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead. At our church, the pastor had a member play out the role of Lazarus, walking onto the stage dressed up as the jewish dead at the time. The pastor called out for someone to unbind Lazarus. We just stared! 'Lazarus' just stood there too. Eventually, someone ran up and unbound 'Lazarus'. I was thinking, probably the jews in the 1st century also just stared, seeing a walking dead man! I don't doubt the possibility of a resurrected Lazarus. I just wonder how the other three gospel writers missed it. Of course they have their own (different) resurrection story. Apparently Mary and Martha are known to the other gospel writers. And per John, the Bethany family was well-off (could afford a tomb, along with many friends from Jerusalem). In our pastor's sermon, he mentioned the discovery of a tomb near Bethany having ossuary (bone containers) with the names matching the Lazarus family exactly. On the one hand, that sounds pretty neat. On the other, why would they use ossuary (a practice only in the first century around Jerusalem, presumably by jewish apocalysts)? That's a little troubling. John 11:23-26 [TEXT] In my view, these verses explain MUCH of the 'early' church, and the eventual failure of the end time. - v23: Per Jesus: "Thy brother shall rise again." Jesus is responding to Martha to 'do something', after her brother Lazarus has been dead four days. - v24: Per Martha: "I have known that he (Lazarus) will rise again, in the rising again in the last day". She's presumably referring to the massive resurrection described in Dan 12:2, along with a time calculation in Dan 12:13. But this doesn't quite work; what is she actually asking Jesus to do? - v25-26: Jesus replies: "I am the rising again, and the life; he who is believing in me, even if he may die, shall live; and every one who is living and believing in me shall not die--to the age." This is certainly great news. Jesus can resurrect people, even without an end-time. - v40: Jesus to Martha, before opening Laz's tomb:: "Said I not to thee, that if thou mayest believe, thou shalt see the glory of God? Well, not really, but maybe John left it out? Why is the Jesus/Martha discussion significant? To start with, the greek syntax for the whole Lazarus section (John 11:1-37) is 'late'; the sections before and after are earlier, around the fall of Jerusalem (e.g. late-Paul, Mark). I'd suspect 'Lazarus' started out as an abbreviated story of Jesus saving his friend. You can easily see the expansions. Thomas is pot-shotted (again); then Jesus arrives to 'find' Laz dead four days (from somebody?) only to 'backtrack' and meet Martha (who normally would 'receive him'), only to bounce AGAIN and repeat the whole exchange with Mary (thereby requiring one more explanation on how all the wailing guests got left behind!). If you're not convinced, do a timed-video of the sequence and you'll notice Jesus twiddling his thumbs for about 2 hours (along with his quivering disciples?). The re-introduction of Martha in v39 ('sister of him who hath died') sounds like the original story didn't have names (in greek, Lazarus was called the 4-day man!). But looking at the Jesus/Martha discussion, Martha, just like Jesus' disciples (and Jesus: see John 5:28), believes in the apocalyptic end-time and day of resurrection. But this Jesus happily announces to her that HE is the resurrection (well, of course). She blithely answers 'sure you're the messiah', seeming to miss Jesus' obvious point (note that Jesus' claim had no Old Testament precedence: a resurrectED messiah; not a resurrectING messiah). So, why the goofy sequence? I really think the gospel writer is trying to dispense with a promised end-time that never arrived. He replaces it with a comment by Jesus that almost HAS to be interpreted in a non-literal way. A messiah without an end-time. A re-defined 'life', even with the finality of death. John 12:1-8 This is the story of Jesus ending up at the house of Lazarus, with Mary annointing Jesus with expensive oil. The story has an equivalent in Mark 14:3-9 and Mat 26:6-13, but at Simon the Leper's house and by a mystery woman. Both end up with virtually the same Jesus-quote. The problem here is how you accomodate the differences. Our pastor (bless his heart), reasoned that 'Simon' couldn't be an active leper since being in his house violated the Law, and Jesus had already healed him. As the good Pastor preceded forward, the reasoning slowly deteriorated, not attempting to take on the varience of complainers (Judas vs 'many' disciples), and the fact that Mark/Mat don't seem to know the mystery woman is Jesus' favorite female chatting disciple. Okaaay. The good pastor's 'strangled' rationale reflects his underlying belief, so at least he is consistent in THAT part. The congregation is happy to oblige, some raising their eyebrows at bit. But, was there any responsibility for THE OBVIOUS? At all? John 12:15 [TEXT] The issue I'm discussing here ISN'T that Matthew had Jesus ride a donkey AND a colt, while John has only the colt. That is too obvious! (By the way, both the Massorete and LXX DO kind of confuse the donkey/colt issue.) My discussion, here, regards the use of the words 'Fear not'. The quote comes from Zech 9:9, where the actual text is strongly 'rejoice'. The two concepts are not even closely 'the same'. I wondered why (of course). I checked the LXX to see if maybe 'John' was using a differing version. Nope ... the LXX is also 'rejoice'. I checked to see if per chance any of the Dead Sea Scrolls fragments had Zec 9:9. Why yes ... and the text is ALSO 'rejoice'. Gee, now what? That's when I thought, maybe the quote is sarcastic? There's always been an odd dissonance between the crowd as Jesus entered Jerusalem, and the crowd that wanted him dead. Two crowds? You'd think John would point that out. Frankly, I think the whole 'King of Israel' along with palm leaves was 'making fun' of Jesus. Three reasons: (1) The whole section can be read as sarcastic. If you look carefully, there's nothing in there positive to Jesus in any of the 'palmy' accounts. I recognize that all today's Easter plays with the palm leaves would become a little humorous (along with 'Palm Sunday'). The synoptics don't have the palm leaves, with the crowd addressing Jesus as 'the prophet'. (2) The 'King of Israel' was always quoted as coming from anti-Jesus quarters (indeed being the theoretical basis for his conviction). The closest you come to followers is in Acts, where at Jesus' reappearance, the disciples ask about the restoration of Israel (Acts 1:6). I always wondered 'who' taught them that?? Notice in v7, Jesus only discusses the timing; not denying the restoration. How interesting (compare to Revelations). (3) It's very unlikely 'anyone' naturally connected the wine-drinking, Samaritan/gentile-chatting, woman-associating, unclean-people-loving, sabbath-breaking, miracle-doing Galilean 'rabbi' as obviously the new 'King of Israel'. Even John the Baptist in prison, along with his disciples were having trouble with the idea. Personally, I think the 'King' concept is embedded in the aramaic 'messiah' (annointed one, similar to Cyrus the Great, and so forth). We equate 'messiah' as 'savior', but I suspect the word had multiple meanings among all the apocalyptic furvor. And so, I see the crowd as 'having a little fun' with the dual-donkey-riding Galilean rabbi (and later convicting him on the same grounds). John 16:13 [TEXT] In a nutshell, my main problem with the NT is the failed prophesies (an immediate apocalypse). I can handle miracles and even a virgin birth. But God in the OT clearly says prophets who aren't right, are wrong (and not from God). Then you're reading along, and you run into THIS verse. The main issue here is the last phrase ... 'and the coming things He will tell you'. This is Jesus speaking to his disciples. Earlier in the passage, Jesus said he'd need to leave so the 'Comforter' could come (v7). Plus Jesus said He wouldn't be back (v10; he re-cants a few verses later, presumably having a little fun). The problem I have here is that the Comforter was SUPPOSED to tell them about the future. But each prophesy they made, turned out to be grossly wrong (except for 2PE-writer who operates in 'God-years'; he's still being monitored with 1,900+ years and counting). Now, to be clear, I'm not pointing fingers at the Comforter. I think the main issue here is a writer whose name in spanish is 'Juan'. Of course the book of John might not have been written by 'Juan'. Aah. John 20:23 [TEXT] WOW. If you want to see a parade of theologians 'twisting in the wind', grab a series of commentaries and see how they explain this verse. At least our pastor was honest this Sunday, explaining his take as HIS OWN (carefully not holding the Holy Spirit as remotely responsible). Actually the problem is two fold. (1) The greek for 'forgive' also has alternative meanings in the NT (permit, leave/give up etc. ... see Mat 16:19 and 18:18. Plus, (2) 'no one' really wants to accept the literal reading (however translated). I'd guess Jesus did the obvious ... put his 10 'children' (not Jude or Thomas) in charge upon his exit (and thus binding/loosing as per YLT). But then Paul came along and didn't like the dorky apostles; Paul probably thought HE could have done a MUCH better job than Jesus (seeing no reason to trouble himself with Jesus' life on earth; true). Acts 1:10 [TEXT] Here, the curiousity is 'two men'. If you read many conservative commentaries or some of the conservative pastors, you'll hear 'two angels' substituted each time. Almost automatically. Now, if you check, the story becomes quite interesting. Each time you read 'angel' in the NT, the greek is 'messenger' or 'angelos'. And just as God has messengers (angels), so do various men in the gospels (like John the Baptist). Consequently, the translators have to use a bit of judgement to see which are 'angels' and which are 'messengers'. Now, do a little more research. Look for 'messenger'/'angel' in Acts. What you'll find is that 'messenger' as an angel only appears in the Peter stories (2nd quarter of Acts). This matches the underlying greek syntax patterns, which suggest Acts is actually four writings pushed together (as Luke himself suggests): (1) The early church (2) Peter's ministry (3) Paul's ministry and (4) Paul's trip to Rome. Each has separate syntactical 'dates', confirming Luke's statement. So, what about 'men' in Acts 1:10? Interestingly it matches the two men at the tomb (Luke 24:4; also not 'messengers'). My 'guess' is that the source for both the post-resurrection and ascension stories was not jewish. Reason? The NT jewish writers loved 'angels' (and apparently were not Sadducees, who didn't believe in angels or a resurrection). So indeed, the 'two men' were 'probably angels'. Acts 7:42 (Amos 5:25) [TEXT] This quote comes from Stephen's speech in his own defense. The whole speech is interesting, and if you have the time, you should go over it, a few words at a time (use a literal translation or the greek itself). Contrary to a lot of scholars' opinions, few of the speeches in Acts syntactically 'match up' author-wise. In other words, it's unlikely they're all written by the same writer (e.g. 'Luke'). In the translated english, they do sound alike, though. And while we're on the subject of authorship, it's also unlikely much of Acts might have been written by 'Luke'. Only a few stories and 'glue' verses match to the gospel of Luke (the match is much higher for Mark and Matthew, and even some of Paul's epistles). Acts is likely a 'Readers Digest' of earlier writings, similar to the gospel of Luke. The issue in this verse begins with the phrase 'give them up to do service to the host of heaven'. 'Give them up' is to 'deliver' or 'hand over' (like a sack of groceries). 'Do service' probably is closer to 'worship', as it's used both in the NT and the OT/LXX. And the 'heavenly host' is very likely other gods (literal stars/planets, which were worshiped as gods as in the quoted Amos 5:25-27). Your first inclination is to assume Stephen (and Amos) are talking about the 'Golden Calf Incident', where Moses took his ever-loving-time getting down from Sinai, thereby 'forcing' the jewish women to hand over their ear-rings. Stephen, being the master orator that he was, then associates the naughty-gods-tent with the tent of the covenant (Tabernacle) and then the Temple that Soloman built, essentially concluding 'You're wasting your time!'. God lives in Heaven (Isa 66:1) ... that tent-thing and temple-thing have no relevance. Stephen had pretty much slaughtered the Torah, and the rocks soon came flying. Luckily Stephen had REALLY good eyesight and could see Jesus standing next to God up in heaven (v56). He reported this situation, but the jews put in their ear-plugs (v57) and then 'rushed' him. It turns out, someone else was standing listening to Stephen (v58). And about twenty or so years later, that listener was applying Stephen's arguments AGAIN (though emphasizing they came directly from Jesus ). But my real question is 'How did the disciples go from argueing 'healing on the sabbath' to 'YHWH dumped Israel years ago' SO FAST?' Goodness, it must have only been a couple of months since Jesus had died. The account of 'Stephen' is a REAL curiousity. EXTRA I: Reading the OT, it's never quite clear whether the 'gods' actually existed. There's many 'I'm the only God' verses, but that's for the Israelites. In the NT, there's separate 'powers and authorities' along with the 'Adversary', which sounds a whole lot like 'gods'. But the book of Enoch assures us they're actually bad angels. Well, ok. Enoch should know. EXTRA II: Most Christians today don't see any need for 'the Temple'. When Jesus died, the curtain to the Holy of Holies got ripped up. Of course, it was right after that and Pentecost, that the disciples started meeting in the Temple (Acts 2:46). Paul, the newly minted Nazorite, also went to the Temple to worship (Acts 21:26; later with the gentile Titus?; v27). It's obvious to me NONE of them had 'connected the dots' like Stephen did. EXTRA III: When I run my greek syntactical analyses, the Stephen account always suggests a 'late' dating. In other words, it's closest pattern match is with books like 2 Thes, 2 Peter 3, etc. On the surface, that hints at 're-written theology'. But it's also possible it was translated from aramaic to greek 'late'. That wouldn't make sense, though ... Stephen himself was greek and quoted from the LXX. Hmmm, maybe 'Stephen' knew the Temple's eventual demise? Obviously, the disciples and Paul got it wrong, but Stephen didn't. Think about it (and don't say 'Holy Spirit' either; that'd suggest everyone but Stephen wasn't inspired). Acts 19:12-15 [TEXT] You can find in various 'liberal' commentaries, that Paul was assigned miracles equal to or better than Peter's miracles (matching Peter one-for-one). This passage is interesting because of the 'evil spirits'. If you haven't read this sequence recently, you really ought to. The phrase only occurs here and twice in Luke (Luke 7:21, Luke 8:2). In each instance, the evil spirit is the source of a sickness or infirmity. Now, contrast the 'evil spirit' with the (much) more common 'demon'. Why the difference? Well, for one thing, Luke (almost) never uses 'demon' (outside of Markian/'Q' passages). The one exception is in the above referenced Luke 8:2. That's the verse that proves Mary Magdalene is a prostitute. Yep. More seriously though, notice that the 'demon' phrase seems to be an add-on to the verse (which continues into v3 and other women supporters). Syntactically the whole phrase is non-Lukian and much closer to the Johnines. Even more interesting, is that outside this verse, Luke never mentions Mary Magdalene (or her nasty demons). The other three gospels mention her several times, but only in the passion sequence. This is where the story gets even MORE interesting. Matthew and John don't seem to know about Mary's demonic (and evil spirit) past. But Mark does! It shows up in the first verse of Mark's famous 'addendum' (Mark 16:9). Now 'where' do you think that came from? (especially when the addendum tends to track Luke's version). I'd really suspect the Magdalene demon phrase originally started out in the Lukian manuscript margins. But more significantly (for me) .... Was 'Luke' likely a physician? He's right there with 'talking' evil spirits and miracle handkerchiefs. (Paul must have completely forgot about his handkerchief and chatty spirits.) Compare Luke's physician-ishness to what you find in the apocryphia (which is actually quite 'modern'). Plus, the Luke/Acts 'physician-speak' patterns are not much different from other similar greek writings of the same period. I don't know about you, but I always wonder when I go to the doctor, whether I should bring up the 'evil spirits' or just let the doctor find them on his own? Goodness, what if they start talking? Acts 24:14 This is an interesting quote, where Paul formally describes 'the Way', confirms at least its reputation as a jewish sect, confirms his own involvement, and then describes its theology (which doesn't remotely match Galatians). For a more in-depth discussion, see our OT passages page and Isa 40:3. I really suspect the palestinian version of Christianity didn't make it much past the John-the-Baptist stage (the Acts writer seemingly oblivious to the Pauline theological doctrine in Asia). Acts 25:13,23 These come from the story of Paul, after his two year stay in prison in Caesaria. Aggrippa II and his sister Bernice are visiting Festus, the roman administrator for Judea. Festus is new, and at a loss as to how to send Paul to Rome for trial (Paul's request). Agrippa seems curious and wants to hear all about it. What is so interesting, is Bernice. Both Agrippa and Bernice are jewish, and grand-children of Herod the Great (almost jewish). Agrippa is in charge of northern Palestine (actually all of it). Bernice has already had three husbands, collecting the wealth of each, at their deaths. Both Agrippa and Bernice live in northern Palestine/Syria, but they have a palace in Jerusalem. Apparently Bernice is a strong jewess, by virtue of demanding her husbands be circumcised (ouchy!), and later performing a vow in the Jerusalem temple (similar to Paul). The Agrippa/Bernice text sequence appears to be dated 'late', matching the greek syntax from later writings (John/pastorals); the Paul sequence, both before and after is similar to the earlier Luke/Romans text. I'd bet the sequence was added for its impressiveness? Agrippa and Bernice later on tried to de-fuse the jewish revolt and failed, loosing their palace. And oddly, Bernice finances the later Roman emperor Vespacian's rise to power, also falling in love with his son Titus (the one who destroyed Jerusalem, and built a victory arch about it in Rome!). Isn't that interesting? Acts 27:25 [TEXT] On this site, I have several references to 'faith' and how it changes meaning with culture, eventually having no solid meaning. 'Belief' ,though, is a little more concrete, reflecting the greek underlying meaning of 'convinced'. This verse illustrates how translators deal with the single greek word, and the two alternative english words. I get the feeling the more 'theologically reticent' use 'believe', while the more 'theologically aggressive' use 'have faith'. Check YOUR version, and see. | |||
| Copyright ©, 2010, dmbarnhart | |||
| NEXT PAGE: the NT EPISTLES >>> Prev Back Next |