jam1. About a.d. 29.
Luke informs us that the year in question coincides with the period when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judaea, Herod Antipas was tetrarch of Galilee, Herod's brother Philip was tetrarch of the region of Iturea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene. The high priesthood at the time was covered by Annas and Caiaphas, Luke says.
jam2. The relevant passages are:
Malachi 3:1
jam3. Luke includes Isaiah verses 40:4-5 at this point.
jam4. Matthew reports that John tried to forbid Jesus from being baptized, arguing that he in fact needed to be baptized by Jesus. Jesus urges John to permit the baptism on ground that "all righteousness" will be fulfilled.
In any case, Matthew is answering a question that was no doubt raised by early Christians. I have chosen to omit this incident from my book.
jam5. The writers of Matthew and Luke, evidently concerned that Mark's version might leave people wondering, if Jesus is the one who saw heaven ripped asunder, how Mark's author learned of this event. The two later evangelists may have preferred the concept of direct witnesses other than Jesus as opposed to Jesus recounting the event to disciples later on.
jam6. Concerns similar to those of the preceding footnote arise here. Matthew prefers "this is my beloved son" to "you are my beloved son," as expressed in the first gospel, Mark, and also in Luke.
jam7. There is no record of what Jesus did during his adolescence in Nazareth. Under Jewish custom, his earthly father, Joseph, would have taught him the carpenter's trade. There is no reason to think that, after Joseph died (most agree that the New Testament's silence about Joseph after Jesus' boyhood implies that Joseph had died by then), Jesus would not have worked as a carpenter in order to help provide for himself, his mother and for possible siblings.
Which brings us to another point: Did Mary bear Joseph children after the birth of Jesus or did she remain a virgin? At this date, no one knows – though the New Testament suggests that he had siblings, including James, the leader of the Jerusalem church. But, these people may have been cousins or even neighbors who had grown up with him.
jam.y1. A.H.M. Jones in his The Herods of Judaea (Oxford 1938) describes the Pharisee faction thus:
jam.y2. The Sadducees were largely of the priestly class and, as they did not believe in any life but this one, tended to be quite worldly. Thus, they tended to be fairly cooperative with Rome's designated rulers.
Luke informs us that the year in question coincides with the period when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judaea, Herod Antipas was tetrarch of Galilee, Herod's brother Philip was tetrarch of the region of Iturea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene. The high priesthood at the time was covered by Annas and Caiaphas, Luke says.
jam2. The relevant passages are:
Malachi 3:1
Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.Isaiah 40:3-5
3 The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.
4 Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low: and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain:
5 And the glory of the LORD shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it.
jam3. Luke includes Isaiah verses 40:4-5 at this point.
jam4. Matthew reports that John tried to forbid Jesus from being baptized, arguing that he in fact needed to be baptized by Jesus. Jesus urges John to permit the baptism on ground that "all righteousness" will be fulfilled.
In any case, Matthew is answering a question that was no doubt raised by early Christians. I have chosen to omit this incident from my book.
jam5. The writers of Matthew and Luke, evidently concerned that Mark's version might leave people wondering, if Jesus is the one who saw heaven ripped asunder, how Mark's author learned of this event. The two later evangelists may have preferred the concept of direct witnesses other than Jesus as opposed to Jesus recounting the event to disciples later on.
jam6. Concerns similar to those of the preceding footnote arise here. Matthew prefers "this is my beloved son" to "you are my beloved son," as expressed in the first gospel, Mark, and also in Luke.
jam7. There is no record of what Jesus did during his adolescence in Nazareth. Under Jewish custom, his earthly father, Joseph, would have taught him the carpenter's trade. There is no reason to think that, after Joseph died (most agree that the New Testament's silence about Joseph after Jesus' boyhood implies that Joseph had died by then), Jesus would not have worked as a carpenter in order to help provide for himself, his mother and for possible siblings.
Which brings us to another point: Did Mary bear Joseph children after the birth of Jesus or did she remain a virgin? At this date, no one knows – though the New Testament suggests that he had siblings, including James, the leader of the Jerusalem church. But, these people may have been cousins or even neighbors who had grown up with him.
jam.y1. A.H.M. Jones in his The Herods of Judaea (Oxford 1938) describes the Pharisee faction thus:
There was probably a left-wing [non-nationalist] movement, though it does not come into prominence until after Herod's death [the first Herod: Herod the Great], which shared the popular hope that the kingdom of God was imminent and held that it was the duty of every good Jew to hasten its coming. But these views were probably confined to the more ignorant members, and the educated majority, better acquainted with the facts of the political situation, postponed the Day of the Lord to a discreetly distant future date. The Pharisees, it would seem, never acknowledged the legitimacy of Herod's rule or of the Roman suzerainty. When Herod imposed an oath of allegiance on his subjects they refused as a body to take the oath, and Herod, unwilling to force the issue, excused them from the obligation. When later in his reign he imposed an oath of allegiance to himself and to the emperor, they again refused. Herod could not pass over this act of disloyalty to the emperor, but he contented himself with inflicting a fine on them. But though they refused formally to admit the legitimacy of any ruler save God or His anointed king, they did not in practice resist Herod's rule; they protested, it is true, if it definitely conflicted with the Law — and they were jealous watchdogs of its integrity, raising a cry at the slightest infraction of its rules — but they limited themselves to protest. The majority of the party followed the lead of Sameas, taking the fatalistic view that, since Herod and the Romans had conquered, their rule must be of God. God had chosen these instruments to chastise His people, and His people must submit patiently to His anger. This attitude, though hardly complimentary to Herod, was very useful to him; as long as the Pharisees taught passive obedience and as long as they retained their influence over the people he was comparatively safe. Unfortunately neither premiss was certain. In so far as the Pharisees taught obedience they tended to lose ground with the populace, and, apart from the growing left-wing movement, the bulk of the party could not be relied upon to submit to his rule indefinitely. Their attitude was purely opportunist, and if they saw a reasonable hope of substituting for him a more compliant ruler, they would not scruple to assist what might be God's purpose...
jam.y2. The Sadducees were largely of the priestly class and, as they did not believe in any life but this one, tended to be quite worldly. Thus, they tended to be fairly cooperative with Rome's designated rulers.
No comments:
Post a Comment