Matthew's New Moses

Moses received God’s Law, and saved his people. Matthew’s Jesus will perform the same functions. The author of Matthew selects and creates his stories to make this point about the identity of Jesus. Here’s the evidence.

The virgin birth story in Matthew is patterned after the birth of Moses as described in Exodus (see Exodus 1:15-2:10). Herod in the Matthew story is seen as the Egyptian Pharaoh. The two infants are saved from an evil king bent on killing them. Both babies have to flee for their lives with the family of Jesus escaping to Egypt. Both families return after the death of the king.

Like the virgin birth, the story of the Sermon of the Mount is a work of fiction. The teachings most probably come from Jesus. What the author of Matthew does is to collect these teachings, and then create a story to present them. Moses received God’s Law on a mountain. Jesus delivers his reform of this Law on a mountain. Notice how Jesus introduces his new standards for Jewish Law: “You have learned how it was said to our ancestors: You must not kill” (one of the Ten Commandments), “But I say this to you…(Matthew 5:21-22).” The reference to Moses is unmistakable. Matthew’s point is that Jesus is the new Moses, the one sent by God to reform Jewish legalism.

Compare the transfiguration stories in Matthew (17:1-8), Mark (9:2-8), and Luke (9:28-36). One noticeable difference is Matthew’s addition of the phrase, “his face shone like the sun.” Now read the story in Exodus (34:29-35) where Moses comes down from the mountain after receiving the Ten Commandments. The skin on his face shone like the sun. First century Jews would not miss the allusion to Moses here. What appears at first blush as a minor editorial change has great significance in the larger picture of the author’s intentions. This is creative writing, not history, the stuff of ancient biography.

The resurrection story is unique to Matthew (see chapter 28). As I will point out in two weeks, the resurrection stories in the four gospels differ considerably from each other. In Matthew’s story, Jesus meets his disciples on a mountain top in Galilee. Mountain tops play a central role in the story of Moses. Jesus concludes his final instructions to his disciples with, “and teach them to observe all the commands I gave you (28:20).” These words appear only in Matthew, the addition of an editor, where Jewish Law is a central focus (see next week’s blog). In making this statement, Jesus is acting as the new Moses.

Moses was also a savior of his nation. Matthew’s Jesus has also come to save, but his precise role in this work is unclear. There are hints in Matthew that salvation involves a renewed Israel, the establishment of a kingdom on earth. At the Last Supper, Jesus tells the disciples that the next time he drinks wine it will be with them in God’s kingdom (26:29). Jesus gives Peter the keys to that kingdom (16:19), and he tells the disciples that each one will judge a tribe of Israel in the new kingdom (19:28). There is no ascension in Matthew. Heaven is the abode of an apocalyptic kingdom. The work of establishing a renewed Israel will be accomplished by God. The role of Jesus is to announce its imminent coming.

There is also plenty of evidence that the kingdom will result from an apocalypse that destroys the world. This kingdom will be ushered in by a Son of Man who will return to earth as divine judge. In this scenario, the kingdom will be for a select few who are judged to be righteous, and will exist in heaven. Jesus is frequently pictured in Matthew’s gospel as the Son of Man. Read the eschatological sermon in Matthew 24:1-25:46. See also Matthew 10:23, 12:41, 13: 24-30, 13:41, 16: 27-28, 17:10, 20:78, 21: 23-27, and 26: 2.

As I argued with the blogs in Mark, I find these two views of the kingdom to be incompatible, the product of two different voices that echo through the gospel. The voice of the early church was certainly not uniform, and yet there is evidence that some early congregations had apocalyptic views. I cannot picture the historical Jesus espousing apocalyptic views involving an end to the world that will lead to intense suffering for those left behind, and a kingdom for a select few who are judged as righteous. I also cannot picture Jesus claiming to be the Son of Man. The spiteful nature of an apocalyptic kingdom which seeks revenge against enemies (see Matthew 10: 11-16) contradicts the beauty of his teachings on love and forgiveness. Thus, I attribute all this Son of Man stuff to the early church, but this is nothing but speculation on my part. The New Testament provides little clarity in deciding this matter.

It is clear, however, that Matthew’s Jesus expected this kingdom to be imminent, that it would come within the generation of his followers. Matthew makes this point again, and again, and again. There are no contradictory statements. See Matthew 4:17, 10:23, 16: 27-28, and the eschatological sermon (24:1-25:46).

In addition to these passages, Matthew makes this point in three different but interesting ways. After arguing with the Pharisees over the nature of evil, Jesus concludes that his casting out devils is a sign that the kingdom is imminent (12:28). This lends support to a key point about Jesus’ work as a healer that was made in my earlier blog entitled “Mark’s Jesus and Jewish Eschatology.” When Jesus performs several cures near a lake, the crowds are amazed to see the dumb speaking, the cripples whole again, the lame walking, and the blind with sight. The prophet Isaiah predicted that when such things happened the kingdom was here. Finally, Jesus tells his disciples that Elijah has come in the person of John the Baptist (17: 9-13). The Jews believed that the kingdom would follow once Elijah returned.

Christians today ignore the unambiguous position of the New Testament that the kingdom of God would come in the first century. I do a statistical study of this question in my book on Evangelical Christianity. The results are interesting and fully support this point. Christians believe that salvation in God’s kingdom will come to them as a matter of grace, a gift from God. This idea comes from the apostle Paul, but it is not Matthew’s idea. According to Matthew, salvation was earned. It resulted from obedience to Jewish Law which is the topic of next week’s blog.

The gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke end with Jesus’ last words of instructions to his disciples. Matthew’s instructions (see Matthew 28: 16-20) are different from the other gospels in two significant ways. The setting is a mountain top, and Jesus concludes with the words, “and teach them to observe all the commands I gave you.” Matthew’s Jesus is the New Moses, the man sent by God to reform Jewish law and to save a nation.

The Virgin Birth Story in Matthew

Christian ministers all over the world will soon be retelling the story of the virgin birth of Jesus. It is an incredible and a beautiful story. It is told in the first two chapters of Matthew, and in Luke 1:5 through 2:40. Please read the versions in both gospels. Comparing them provides important insights.

The story in Matthew makes the assumption that Mary and Joseph live in Bethlehem, that Bethlehem was their only residence. The couple is engaged in the story, but before they are married Mary somehow becomes impregnated by the Holy Spirit. After Jesus is born, a special star rises in the east to lead wise men to the birthplace so that they can pay homage to Jesus. This star wanders around the universe.

Rumors of the birth of a Jewish king deeply worries Herod. He in fact becomes so threatened by these rumors that he orders all male children within the Bethlehem area to be killed. To escape this danger, an angel instructs Joseph to take his family to Egypt. Eventually the family leaves Egypt for Nazareth in Galilee, refusing to return to Bethlehem because of fear of Herod’s successor.

There are several historical problems with this story. The first is that it only appears in Matthew. If the gospels really were eyewitness accounts, I can’t believe that the other writers, eyewitnesses, would have missed these incredible events—wandering stars, visits by wise men, and the death of all those children. It is also important to note that Roman and Palestinian historians of the period missed these events.

The second problem is that Matthew’s story differs from Luke’s. There are in fact no similarities between the stories except for the characters. The Luke story begins by linking together the births of Jesus and John the Baptist. No similar attempt is made in Matthew. In Luke, Mary and Joseph reside in Nazareth; but, due to a worldwide census ordered by Caesar Augustus, they travel to Bethlehem because Joseph was born there. While there, Jesus is born in a stable and visited by shepherds. After the birth and Jesus’ consecration in the Temple, Mary, Joseph, and Jesus return to Nazareth. There is no mention of a wandering star, the visit of wise men, a trip to Egypt, or the murder of all those children. At minimum, one story must be wrong.

Also troubling, these stories only appear in Matthew and Luke. Paul sells the Christian story to the Gentile world, and makes no reference to a virgin birth. Can you imagine a great salesman ignoring one of the most powerful weapons in his arsenal? If God was the biological father of Jesus, Paul would have made that claim in every letter he wrote.

In addition, Mark and John do not contain virgin birth stories. John in fact strongly implies that Joseph was the biological father of Jesus (see John 6: 42-43). The same implication is found in the genealogies of Matthew and Luke. Joseph is listed in each one as the father of Jesus. It is through the bloodline of Joseph that Jesus is linked to the house of David.

Most historians of the first century Christian period agree that Jesus was born in Nazareth. Why then do Matthew and Luke put this birth in Bethlehem? Simply because the prophet Micah predicted that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem (see Micah 5:2). The Jews believed that the Jewish scriptures were far more than an historical record of God’s involvement with the people of Israel. They were also a blueprint for the future. In this sense, these scriptures were about the coming Messiah. If Jesus was indeed the long awaited Jewish Messiah, he would be born in Bethlehem. Matthew and Luke invented stories to solve this problem.

The authors of Matthew and Luke also use these fictional stories to describe the identity of Jesus. That is what ancient biographies do. The genealogy in Matthew (1:1) points out that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, descending from David and Abraham to whom the messianic promises were made. Matthew also uses his virgin birth story to introduce the idea that Jesus can best be understood as the new Moses, which is the subject of next week’s blog. In a future blog, I will demonstrate how Luke uses his virgin birth story to introduce his ideas about the identity of Jesus.

An Introduction to Matthew

Although Mark was the first gospel written, the gospel of Matthew is first in the hearts of most Christians. The virgin birth story and the Sermon on the Mount are two indelible elements of the Christian tradition. The Lord’s Prayer is without doubt the most repeated petition made to God. All three of these Christian treasures come from Matthew.

The gospel of Matthew is the most Jewish account of Jesus in the New Testament. The author was most probably a Jewish Christian living in the Hellenistic world. The earliest manuscripts of the gospel are written in Greek. Because 85% of Mark appears in Matthew, it is unlikely that Matthew was written by an eyewitness. Eyewitnesses do not copy the work of others. If the author had been an eyewitness, you would also expect statements such as I was with him when… Such statements do not occur.

There is a general consensus among most New Testament scholars that Matthew was written between 80 and 90 CE. This dating range is based on the idea that Matthew is dependent on Mark, which was written around 70CE. The intense hostility toward the Pharisees in the gospel of Matthew only makes sense if the gospel was written after 70CE when the Pharisees became the dominant party in Judaism. It has also been noted that the gospel contains no debates concerning circumcision or dietary laws, issues that raged in the 50s during the ministry of Paul. The Church was now firmly centered in the Hellenistic world where such issues were no longer of great concern.

The gospel of Matthew is composed from three sources—Mark represents 50% of the material while Q and sources unique to Matthew make up the rest. I want to talk about each of these three sources in some detail.

We covered many issues related to the writing of Mark in the previous series of blogs. One issue that we conspicuously avoided was the oral tradition. All the stories about Jesus in the New Testament come to us from the oral tradition. I learned important lessons about the oral tradition from an usual set of experiences.

I was a member of a fraternity forty years ago. It was one of the highlights of my college experience. Five years ago I went to a college reunion, my first since graduating, and we told stories. The religious scientist in me perked up instantly.

I remembered some of the stories differently from my friends. Oftentimes, we remembered the punch line, but some of the details had been lost over time. To relate a seamless story, the lost details were invented. Old friends not present at the reunion were described in legendary terms. I was one of the worst offenders.

Memory is a fascinating thing. First, we remember what we want to remember. Second, we remember the gist of a story, the general outline, but not the precise details. Story telling weaves together fact, fantasy, and imagination.

The gospels are based on an oral tradition passed down among the followers of Jesus for forty years. What is amazing is the number of stories that have survived. Jesus obviously made a lasting impression on his contemporaries. And yet these stories were told and retold by human beings for forty years. After the stories were told and retold, they were placed into a gospel by an editor, a flesh and blood human being with definite ideas about Jesus.

Compare the parable of the wedding feast in Matthew (22:1-14) and Luke (14: 15-24). The point of the story is the same: God has given up on the Jews and the kingdom will be for Gentiles. But note that many of the details are different. The excuses made by the invited guests are different in each story. The voice of the editor is also inserted. Matthew’s gospel is concerned with obedience to religious law as a condition of entering the kingdom. Matthew concludes the story with, “For many are called, but few are chosen.” Luke’s gospel focuses on the poor, the downtrodden, the crippled, and the blind. These are the new guests invited to the banquet.

As I indicated earlier, half of Matthew’s gospel comes from stories taken from Mark. These stories are all products of the oral tradition. Another 25% of Matthew comes from the Q gospel. The Q hypothesis was first suggested by Johannes Weiss, a German biblical scholar. Q refers to the German word for source.

Q is classified as a sayings gospel, which means that it contains a collection of sayings from Jesus with no story line. These sayings include teachings of Jesus and parables, all of which contain a strong eschatological flavor. There is no birth story, Passion Narrative, or attempt to link stories into a coherent narrative. Q is believed to be one of the earliest sources of stories about Jesus. The problem is that a Q manuscript has never been found.

Compare Matthew 3:7-10 and Luke 3: 7-9. You will note that after slightly different introductions, the two stories proceed word for word. This story is found only in Matthew and Luke. The best explanation for the identical versions of the story is that the authors of Matthew and Luke took the story from the same source. Sadly, as I indicated above, we have never been able to locate Q. Finally, it is interesting to note how the Q material was integrated into the text. The editor in each case takes the Q material and places it among other stories (different in each gospel) as if he was weaving a patchwork quilt.

The last source of material for the gospel of Matthew are stories that are unique to Matthew. These stories include the virgin birth and the Sermon on the Mount. My next blog focuses entirely on Matthew’s famous story of the miraculous birth of Jesus. The Sermon on the Mount is our topic for three weeks hence.

Mark: Odds and Ends

An Odds and Ends blog will conclude the discussion of each New Testament work. This blog will be used to comment on issues that do not merit a separate blog.

The Absence of a Virgin Birth Story (Mark 1: 9-11). Mark does not have a virgin birth story. There are two possible reasons why this is the case. The first is that Mark never heard about this story. The second is that Mark knew of such a story, but decided not to report it. Jesus becomes the Son of God not at birth but as an adult when John baptizes him (Mark 1: 9-11). As I pointed out in the blog on the resurrection, Mark may have been influenced by adoptionists ideas. His Jesus is the most human Jesus depicted in the New Testament, which may explain why he didn’t include a virgin birth story.

It is important to understand the meaning of the designation Son of God to a first century Jew. It has no connection to the second arm of the Trinity. A Son of God was a special human being chosen by God to perform a specific function.

There is one other aspect of this story that I find fascinating. When God designates Jesus as Son of God in Mark’s story, a voice came from heaven. In Matthew’s version of the story (Matthew 3:17), a voice spoke from heaven. At first blush, the differences appear trivial, of no consequence. And yet it is possible that the voice of Mark is private, directed only at Jesus, while in Matthew God spoke for all to hear. What is important is the pattern of editorial changes. When this seemingly minor discrepancy is seen in the larger context of Mark’s Messianic secret, it takes on a new significance. You may not agree.

The Conflict Stories. Mark has a series of Galilean conflict stories involving the Pharisees (see 2:15-22, 3:1-6, 7: 1-23, 8: 11-21, and 10: 1-12). The purpose of these stories is to suggest that the Pharisees played a role in Jesus’ death. This is probably not historical.

At the time of Jesus the Pharisees were a small party centered in Jerusalem. They represented the common people with a keen interest in the precise interpretation of Jewish Law. The Torah says that a Jew could not work on the Sabbath. The Pharisees were concerned with defining work. They became the dominant party in Judaism after the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. Before that time, it is difficult to find them.

There are two historical problems with these conflict stories. The first is that Mark places them in Galilee. The problem here is that the Pharisees were an urban party centered in Jerusalem. There is no evidence of Pharisees operating in Galilee at the time of Jesus.

The second problem is that doctrinal disputes within the family of Judaism were common, an accepted way of life, no big deal. It is also important to note that Jesus and the Pharisees agreed on many things—on most of the important issues such as monotheism, election, the gift of Jewish Law and the need for obedience (This point will become absolutely clear when we get to Matthew.), the coming Messiah, and the final judgment. Disagreement over the role of purity rules in Jewish religious life would not be grounds for wanting someone put to death (Mark 7:1-23).

The Romans were responsible for the death of Jesus. They were probably helped by upper class Jews who collaborated with them, but these Jews would not have included Pharisees. Many scholars who have looked at this question argue that these dispute stories reflect a conflict between Jewish Christians centered in Jerusalem after the death of Jesus and the Pharisees from 30 to 70 CE. If this interpretation is correct, Mark used this conflict in creating his stories. That’s how ancient biographies were written.

New Wine/Fresh Skins (Mark 2:22). Nobody puts new wine into old wineskins. This whole discussion suggests that what Jesus is talking about is a new religion. That is what Mark’s gospel posits.

The Gerasene Demoniac (Mark 5:1-20). I hope you read this story and a red light flashed on. What is this guy talking about with this idea of a Messianic secret? In this story Jesus cures a man, and then instructs him to go home and spread the word about what God in his mercy has done for him. No attempt is made to keep this cure a secret.

This story presents evidence that is contrary to the central conclusions about Mark presented in the blog dealing with the Messianic secret. Welcome to the world of New Testament interpretation. Few ideas can be argued with certainty. New Testament evidence is ambiguous at best, often contradictory. So you do the best you can. Here are the passages that relate to an issue. What do they say? What is the best fit? It’s complicated, fun for people like me who like to solve puzzles, but it is best approached with a spirit of humility.

John the Baptist is Beheaded (Mark: 6:17-29). The story presented here belongs in a soap opera. Herod’s wife, Herodias, wants John dead because John is reported to have told Herod that he could not marry her. At Herod’s birthday banquet the daughter of Heriodias dances for Herod and enchants him. In deep appreciation, Herod promises to grant her any wish that she makes. Her mother instructs her to ask for John’s head.

Josephus, the first century Jewish historian, has a different view. He reports that Herod killed John because he posed a political threat. To prevent John from causing an uprising, Herod took a preventive strike and ordered him put to death. Which story makes more sense to you?

The Young Rich Man (Mark 10: 17-19). The young rich man asks Jesus how he can inherit eternal life. He prefaces his question with Good Master. In reply, Jesus asked the man why he called him good. Only God is good. This story does not do much for Christians who hold a Trinitarian view of Jesus.

Now read the story in Matthew (19:16-22), and note the subtle editorial change. The rich man describes Jesus as good in Mark while the deed is described as good in Matthew. Mark’s Jesus is seen as more human than the Jesus developed in Matthew.

Son of Man As Ransom For Many (Mark 10:45). Jesus tells his disciples here that the Son of Man will come to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many. In several places I argue that there is no evidence in Mark that Jesus’ death was seen as an atoning sacrifice for the forgiveness of sin. I stand by that conclusion. In this passage, the Greek word for ransom has no connection to sin. Instead it relates to a political hostage. Jesus will give his life for the Jewish people who are political hostages of Rome.

Gethsemane (Mark 14: 32-42) Jesus’ agony in the garden of Gethsemane is obviously fiction because there was no one there to witness it. Peter, James, and John were nearby, but they were sound asleep.

Jesus Before the Sanhedrin (Mark 14:53-65). The trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrin is reported by Mark to take place during the Passover celebration. It is interesting to note, however, that it was against Jewish Law for the Sanhedrin to meet during Passover. Mark’s mistake provides further evidence that the Passion Narrative was a work of fiction. It also supports the idea that the author was not a Jew or from Palestine. A Palestinian Jew would not make that mistake.

Mark's Passion Narrative

The Passion Narrative is the longest story in the New Testament. It details the betrayal of Jesus, the Last Supper; and Jesus’ arrest, trial, and crucifixion. For the versions of the story found in Mark, Matthew, and Luke, Mark is clearly the author (See Mark, chapters 14 and 15). It is a work of creative fiction that reflects on the meaning of Jesus’ death.

Although some events depicted in the story may have historical roots, there are four historical problems which we cannot ignore. The first is the burial of Jesus. While we have little historical information concerning the events of Jesus’ ordeal, we know a lot about Roman crucifixions. There were hundreds of thousands of political dissidents crucified in the Roman Empire during the period of Rome’s political rule. This form of execution was reserved for Roman prisoners, and there were rules governing its implementation. One of the rules was that the prisoner was not to be buried. Political prisoners were left on the cross after they died so animals could devour their bodies. It was part of the punishment. The goal was to humiliate the victim and to deter potential dissenters by the horror of the spectacle.

The second problem is the trial. Again, we know a great deal about Roman procedures when it comes to crucifixions. Trials were not held. Roman officials would have done little else but conduct these trials if they had been required. But they were not necessary. The Roman military had the authority and the power to deal with the problem. Suspected political dissidents were arrested and put on a cross.

The problems of the burial and the trial raise the question of why was Jesus treated differently? We surely think of Jesus as special, but the Romans didn’t. To the Roman authorities, Jesus was a peasant from Galilee, a province known for producing political troublemakers.

The setting for the Passion Narrative was the Passover celebration in Jerusalem, a time to remember God’s great act of freeing the Jews from Egyptian colonial rule. Thousands of Jews made the pilgrimage to Jerusalem with the hope that God would intervene again to free them from Rome. Rome sent extra troops to protect against political outbreaks. The idea that Roman authorities would conduct a public trial for a popular political reformer during Passover is not credible. It would be too risky.

A similar problem relates to the portrayal of Pilate during the trial—our third historical problem. The story indicates that Jesus was brought before Pilate, and that Pilate found no case against him. Because the chief priests and the crowd loudly demand that Jesus be crucified, Pilate eventually gives into their demands. The story further indicates that Rome had a policy of freeing one prisoner during the Passover festival. In this case, Pilate agrees to free Barabbas, a man arrested for inciting a riot and murder, in exchange for Jesus, a man Pilate believed to be innocent.

Historians have found no evidence that Rome had a policy to free a prisoner during Passover. No prisoner was freed prior to the crucifixion of Jesus or after. The second problem with the story is the behavior of Pilate during the trial, a trial that almost certainly did not take place. Pilate was famous for his cruelty. Not long after these events, Pilate was replaced by Rome for excessive cruelty. The thought of Pilate trading a known troublemaker for a man he believed was innocent is not credible.

The depiction of Pilate during the trial suggests a possible motive for the story. The author may have been interested in exonerating Rome for Jesus’ death and blaming the Jews. The author’s goal might have been to reduce the chances of Christians being persecuted by the Romans. This distortion of history that the Jews killed Jesus, most fully developed in the gospel of John, has had tragic consequences for Jews throughout history as I will show in a future blog entry.

The final historical problem with Mark’s Passion Narrative is that the story is truncated. Too much happens within too short a time span for the events to be believable. The Last Supper takes place on Thursday night. The trial before the Sanhedrin, the meeting with Pilate, and the crucifixion occur on Friday. Jesus dies before sunset on Friday. The problem is that it usually took two or three days for a person to die on a cross.

As I said at the outset, the Passion Narrative is a work of creative fiction that reflects on the meaning of Jesus’ death. Ancient biographies were written that way. Writers often didn’t have the historical data they needed, and they were primarily concerned with identity, character, and/or meaning. To relate this information, they created stories.

What is Mark telling us about the meaning of Jesus’ death? To begin with, there is no evidence in this story that Jesus was sent by God to die for our sins. The idea of Jesus’ significance as an atoning sacrifice for human sin is not found in Mark. There is much evidence to support the idea of atoning sacrifice in John’s version of the Passion Narrative, but that is a different story. John changes several aspects of the story which I will develop in a future blog.

Jesus died because he threatened the Romans. The key to understanding this important conclusion is the events in the story centering around the Temple. Rome ruled indirectly through the Temple. The High Priest and the Temple authorities collaborated with the Romans. The Temple was also the key to understanding the Jewish faith. God’s presence was known there. The High Priest mediated access to God. Forgiveness was also dispensed through the sacrificial rituals practiced there.

Jesus challenged both the religious and the political aspects of the Temple’s power. Upon entering Jerusalem, the first thing Jesus did was drive out those buying and selling animals for sacrifice. The crowds loved it. He verbally attacks the scribes who worked at the Temple, and then proclaims to his disciples that the Temple will be destroyed which threatened Rome’s political control. Judas may have communicated that threat to the Temple authorities.

We discussed the meaning of his death in the blog dealing with the Messianic secret. Because they define him in traditional Messianic categories, the Jews do not understand the meaning of Jesus’ life or death. The first to get it is the Roman centurion (15:37-39) who participates in Jesus’ suffering. As Jesus dies, the curtain hiding and protecting the mystery of God is torn from top to bottom. The Temple will no longer mediate access to God. Anyone who reflects on and participates in the suffering of Jesus will attain access to God on their own.

As Jesus dies, he is quoted as saying, “My God, my God, why have you deserted me” from Psalm 22 (Mark 15:34). Psalm 22 is about a man who suffers and is later vindicated by God. The Old Testament scripture used here does not point to Jesus, and thus prove the historicity of these events as many Christians believe. The idea that Jesus fulfills Old Testament scripture is not the point of Mark’s using this Psalm. If you read about Jesus’ death in Luke and John, Jesus’ last words are different, taken from different Psalms, and used to describe a very different Jesus. The author of Mark takes these words from Psalm 22 because they support his point. Jesus suffers for all of us, and in doing that he leads us to God.

A new religion has been created. It has nothing to do with atonement for human sin or saving us for heaven. It is about bringing God into our lives. We do it when we participate in the suffering of another because that directs our focus away from self. The message of Mark is both powerful and groundbreaking.

Mark's Resurrection Story

In college I took classical Greek. My goal was to read the New Testament in its original language which I realized my Junior year. My New Testament Greek class was an amazing one. I was the only student. I want to take you back to that class for a brief moment. We had been translating the gospel of Mark for three weeks. As I finished chapter 16 and closed my book, my professor asked: “Did you find those last few verses more difficult to translate?”

“No, I don’t think so,” I responded as I looked over at him.

“Most textual scholars believe that verses 9 through 20 were added to the original gospel by Christian scribes. These verses describing the resurrection do not appear in the oldest manuscripts we have of Mark. The sentence structure is more complex, and the vocabulary is not typical of Mark. One of the reasons we are reading Mark first is because he writes like a journalist with a sentence structure that is both simple and direct. These eleven verses are different.”

“I don’t believe it,” I responded.

“There are two possibilities,” my professor continued. “The first is that the original Mark ends with verse 8 in Chapter 16. If this is the case, the disciples never meet the resurrected Jesus. Before dismissing this possibility out of hand, remember that we noted throughout the gospel that the disciples never understand the true significance of Jesus’ life. Mark may be emphasizing that point, and these last eleven verses are not what the author intended at all. Rather the author intended to conclude his gospel at verse 8. The other possibility is that the last page of a very early manuscript was lost, and the scribes remedied the problem by adding eleven verses from another source.”

My professor went on to explain that there are literally thousands of variant readings among the many different New Testament manuscripts. The term variant reading indicates that other words, different from those found in the text you are reading, appear in other New Testament manuscripts.

For fifteen hundred years, manuscripts were copied by hand until Gutenberg solved the problem with moveable type. In early New Testament manuscripts, all the letters are in small caps, there is no punctuation either within or between sentences, and there is no separation between words. These early manuscripts are nothing but a continuous string of letters with no spaces between words or sentences. Mistakes in copying were easy to make. Once a mistake was made, it was copied again, and again, and again.

Most of the problems are simple errors—misspelled words, words that are omitted, or a line that the copying scribe skipped. And yet there are several significant problems as verses 9-20 in chapter 16 suggest. When an important textual problem exists, it is likely that the copying scribe deliberately made the change.

Mark’s story of the resurrection as found in the disputed verses cited above is a weak one. It is unclear where the event took place, and many details found in other gospels are omitted. It reads like an afterthought, an add-on. The resurrection of Jesus is also not important for Mark’s thinking about who Jesus was. As I pointed out in an earlier blog, the key event was his death on the cross, not the resurrection. With that said, I will leave the discussion of the resurrection in Mark to another time when his account is compared to other gospel treatments, and conclude this blog with three additional examples of significant variant readings.

The lovely story in the gospel of John about casting the first stone (see John 7: 53-8:12) is almost certainly not original. It does not appear in the earliest texts we have of John, and again the vocabulary, grammar, and sentence structure are different when compared to the rest of the gospel.

Read 1 Corinthians 14:26-40. Now read it again omitting verses 34 and 35. The passage reads seamlessly. It has been pointed out by many textual scholars that the anti-women verses (34-35) were inserted by a scribe. I will argue when we get to Paul that, like Jesus, he had a very high view of women for a first century man. Many leaders in his early churches were women to cite one piece of evidence that helps make that case. If that is true, verses 34 and 35 are suspect. These verses were probably added by a scribe who wanted to make Paul’s view of women more compatible with the general culture.

Finally, there are several textual problems that relate to a group of early Christians called adoptionists. These first century followers of Jesus argued that Jesus was fully human, not divine. There is only one God. Because Jesus was so righteous, God adopts him as his son. This adoption takes place when Jesus is an adult. There is no virgin birth story. Bart Ehrman in his fascinating book Misquoting Jesus: the Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, cites many examples of changes in early New Testament texts made by scribes to weaken this adoptionist “heresy.”

As an aside before concluding, I should point out that many scholars argue that Mark’s gospel contains adoptionist ideas. Note that there is no virgin birth story. The gospel opens when an adult Jesus is baptized by John, and a voice from heaven proclaims him to be God’s son.

With that said, two conclusions regarding textual problems within the Bible jump out at you. How can one claim that the Bible contains the inerrant word of God when there is confusion as to what those words are? The fact that New Testament manuscripts were copied for fifteen hundred years by flesh and blood human beings with their own opinions and agendas has led to thousands of variant readings among those texts. Untangling these problems so that the original text can be found is not possible.

Second, there is a danger in insisting on a literal reading of a text. Women have been forced to play secondary roles in many Christian churches for centuries, and yet it is likely that the anti-feminist statements in Paul were inserted by scribes and not original to Paul. Finally, reread the last eleven verses in Mark (16:9-20), the disputed ones. I wonder how many fundamentalists were harmed or even killed by picking up dangerous snakes or drinking a deadly poison when testing their faith.

Mark's Jesus and Jewish Eschatology

Many commentators have placed Mark’s Jesus within the Jewish eschatological tradition. To understand what this means, it is helpful to begin with Jewish history. The religion of Israel was created when God made certain promises to Israel. A covenant was established in which God promised to be Israel’s God and to protect her, while Israel agreed to obey God’s law.

A problem with this central tenet of Israel’s faith emerged when Israel came under colonial rule. The first invasion came from Assyria in 721 B.C.E. Israel’s colonial status continued, with few exceptions, into the time of Jesus under the Romans and beyond.

The question became, How do you explain colonial oppression in light of God’s promise of protection? The prophetic answer was that oppression was punishment for Israel’s failure to obey God’s law. This explanation made some sense until the second century B.C.E. when an especially brutal Syrian king tried to destroy the Jewish religion. Jews were killed for circumcising their children and for otherwise obeying religious law.

Thus, a new explanation was needed. The prophet Daniel provided it in the second century B.C.E. He argued that God was a just and a loving God, and was not responsible for the people’s suffering. Rather Satan was, the power of evil. However, at the end of time, when conditions were at their absolute worst, God would intervene, defeat Satan, and establish his kingdom. Jewish eschatology concerns itself with ideas about the end of the world, and the coming of God’s kingdom.

At the time of Jesus, three different approaches to eschatology were swirling around. The first one, apocalyptic eschatology, called for the destruction of the world. It was mean-spirited in that a select group would be taken to heaven while the vast majority of humans would burn. This approach was motivated by revenge. God will intervene to even the score with one’s enemies. A second approach, prophetic eschatology, posited a new order for this world, a renewed Israel in which God’s anointed would rule as king. A third approach, realized eschatology, argued that the kingdom had arrived in the works and acts of Jesus, and that it was essentially a matter of the heart—a kingdom within.

A prominent figure in the apocalyptic drama is the Son of Man, first described in Daniel (see Daniel 7:13). Many Jews came to believe that a Son of Man would return to earth at the end of times from the clouds of heaven to judge the people. Those deemed righteous would be taken with the eschatological judge to heaven to live with God forever. Those deemed unrighteous would receive the wrath of God’s judgment. The Jesus pictured in Mark believes that he is this Son of Man (see Mark 2:28, 9:31, 10:33, 14:21, 14:42, and 14:63).

In addition, it is the contention of Mark’s Jesus that these dramatic events will unfold within the generation of his followers. Read Chapter 13, the eschatological chapter, with special attention to Mark 13:30. See also Mark 1:15, 9:1, and 12:34. All of these passages indicate that the coming kingdom was imminent, within the first century.

The idea of the imminent approach of the kingdom within the generation of Jesus’ followers is reinforced by several stories in Mark. The gospel begins with Jesus being tempted by Satan (1:12-13). Matthew expands the story (Matthew 4:1-11) in a way that suggests that Satan wanted to make a deal with Jesus for joint control of the universe. Jesus rejects Satan’s scheme. It will be war between these two forces.

The healing stories in Mark indicate that the battle against evil at the end of times has already begun in the work of Jesus. For ancient people the cause of disease was not biological but the action of evil forces invading the body, forces controlled by Satan. So when Jesus heals the sick and casts out demons, he is battling evil. It is a sign that the final battle against Satan has begun and that the victory of God over evil is imminent. The kingdom of God is coming very, very soon. It has in fact partially arrived because of Jesus’ war against Satan.

The eschatological focus of Mark’s gospel raises two important New Testament questions. The first relates to the Jesus of history. Who was he—the Son of Man or the prophet of a renewed Israel? Many New Testament scholars argue that the historical Jesus can’t be found. Few doubt that Jesus existed as a first century flesh and blood human being, but determining precisely who he was is not possible from the New Testament record. John Dominic Crossan draws an interesting analogy to quantum mechanics. We cannot see the parts of atoms even with the most powerful microscopes. We can only detect their effects.

The problem with determining who was the historical Jesus is that three voices intermingle within the four gospels, and it is next to impossible to separate them. These voices include that of Jesus, the early Church, and the writer of the gospel. Many scholars argue that the Jesus who claims to be the Son of Man in Mark is an invention of the early Church, that the statements listed above pertaining to the Son of Man were not made by the Jesus of history but put in his mouth by the early Church.

I agree with this conclusion for two reasons. First, I cannot picture a mean-spirited Jesus who will lead a few to heaven while the rest of humanity suffers a horrible end. John the Baptist was an eschatological prophet within this camp. There are some hints in the New Testament that Jesus began his career as a member of John’s movement, but he left. The message of Jesus was one of love, not revenge. Second, Jesus speaks and acts like a prophet of a renewed Israel. His message is prophetic: the imminent coming of the kingdom of God. His actions are prophetic: the cleansing of the Temple, and the performance of miracles modeled after those performed by Elijah (Luke 7:11-17). He tells his disciples that he will drink wine with them in the new kingdom (Matthew 26:29), and he suggests that the disciples will have a special role to perform in a renewed Israel (Matthew 19:28). But the idea that Jesus saw himself as a prophet of a renewed Israel is speculative, my best guess based on evidence reported in Matthew and Luke. The New Testament is ambiguous, often misleading, and yes infuriating when it comes to the question of whether Jesus thought of himself as the Son of Man. The gospel of Mark may report his statements accurately.
There is little doubt, however, that the historical Jesus must be understood within this Jewish eschatological tradition. His words and deeds were eschatological as reported in the gospel of Mark. It is also clear that the kingdom of God was expected to come very soon, within the generation of Jesus’ followers. As I point out in my book on Evangelical Christianity, this view of the imminent approach of the kingdom is unanimously held by all New Testament writers.

This leads to a far more important problem for Christians living in the twenty-first century. Jesus was wrong. If Jesus was a prophet of a renewed Israel, his message was not accurate. God did not establish a new state of Israel which was free from colonial rule. If Jesus thought of himself as the Son of Man, he has yet to return, his time frame clearly off schedule by some 2,000 years. Mark’s Jesus is pictured fighting and defeating the forces of evil, and yet not much seems to have changed. The message of Jesus was directed at the twelve tribes of Israel. Salvation was seen as a corporate event for the state of Israel, not pertaining to the individual believer which came from Paul and the early Church.

Modern Christians do not read what the Bible says about Jesus. Instead they invent a Jesus that they need and want. The message of salvation in the gospel of Mark has no relevance for Christians living today. As you will see in the weeks that follow, the messages of salvation in Matthew and Luke are no different.

And yet, Mark’s gospel may provide a way out. The creative thrust of this work, the subject of last week’s blog, paints a picture of Jesus that has nothing to do with salvation. The Jews, without exception, see Jesus as a salvation figure, and they miss the point. The one who gets it is the centurion, the Gentile crucifier who encounters the suffering Jesus on the cross. This encounter leads him to God.

The central message of Mark is a powerful one. Participating in the suffering of another leads one to God because the enormity of the experience broadens one’s focus beyond egocentric concerns. In expanded awareness, divine love touches human life. The suffering Jesus shows us the way to God. That is a Jesus that modern Christians can enthusiastically embrace.