On Matthew 5:7

Hello, and welcome back to The Moral Vision of Jesus Christ.  Newbies should visit the Introduction to get a feel for what we're trying to accomplish here.

We're fresh off of a long, perhaps disjointed, series of entries that ultimately focused on the fallibility of the texts of the New Testament.  We didn't argue that the entire New Testament is incorrect, but merely that it couldn't all possibly be taken for granted as "absolutely correct, the word of God."

Before we completely abandon that line of thought, let me try to punctuate it once more: if the texts of the New Testament are not necessarily all one-hundred percent the "word of God," which I believe we have shown adequately, then a faithful person owes every single text of the New Testament the full scrutiny and suspicion that any other ancient historical text would receive, if for no other reason than to try to suss out what is divine in these texts, and what is merely human.

Ok.

Let's change gears to something some of you may find way more interesting.  Today, let's begin an open ended study of the world of paganism as it existed before and during the Apostolic Age.

Here we go.

Paganism: An Introduction

Terms and Context

If you lived in a Roman-controlled city around the time of Jesus' birth - which could have been in what we now call Italy, Spain, France, North Africa, Greece, Turkey or the Near East - you very likely believed that the cosmos, the world, and your life were controlled by the whims of a pantheon of many Graeco-Roman gods.*

Paganism is dryly defined as "a religion other than one of the main world religions, specifically a non-Christian or pre-Christian religion."  Paganism is a broad term, encompassing the faith systems of many peoples from many parts of history.  In function, paganism is a religious system by which adherents attain special favors in real life from myriad unseen divine powers by sacrifices of material value - commonly blood.

Depending on how broadly one defines paganism, nearly every ancient religion across the globe could be considered "pagan."  Key for our understanding is that paganism was not a monolith.  Whether or not a particular religious system might be considered "pagan" is fluid insofar as the definition of the term is fluid.

In the first century, in the Roman Empire's paganism, there were certain deities which had to be worshipped.  For example, sometimes the Emperor himself was considered a living god and a member of the divine pantheon, and would have been worshipped as a matter of law.  Generally speaking, however, as long as adherents to paganism gave lip-service respects to the legally instituted Roman gods, they were allowed to worship whatever other gods they chose.  In this sense, Graeco-Roman paganism could be seen as an extremely inclusive thought system.  The Roman gods did not exclude other gods.  While some pagans focused their worship on particular patron gods rather than actively worshipping an entire pantheon, all pagans still at least believed in the existence of other deities.

To be sure, when Rome entered Palestine, they didn't ask the Jews to abandon their god.  They only insisted that the Jews make room in their belief system for a few Graeco-Roman gods.

Aside from the resistance offered in Palestine, as Hellenism and the Roman Empire spread across the known world during the centuries before Jesus' birth, religious assimilation of newly conquered peoples was generally easy because Graeco-Roman paganism was so much like the paganisms of the peoples they assimilated.

In pagan societies, religious ritual centered around sacrifice at a local temple.  A Graeco-Roman citizen desiring favor from the gods (or a particular god) in 100 BC might take an animal such as a lamb or a bird or a pig to the local temple to have it ritually killed by the temple cultists.  If one didn't have an animal to sacrifice, one could easily buy one from a vendor inside, or in the immediate vicinity, of the temple.  (Here, think about the men Jesus scolds for selling things in The Temple in the gospel.)

After the sacrifice, the animal meat was normally cooked on a big communal fire, and a large portion of it distributed back to the worshippers present for consumption, with only a small portion being totally burned up as sacrifice to the god or gods in question.  In this sense, religious worship in the Graeco-Roman world was somewhat like a barbeque.**

Since there were so many gods, morality didn't necessarily fall under the purview of paganism.  In the modern age, we frequently see religions as morality-systems.  In ancient times, religion was far more transactional than behavioral.  If you wanted to have a good harvest, you needed to make the sacrifice prescribed by the cultists.  If you wanted your baby to be born healthy, you needed to make the sacrifice prescribed by the cultists.  If you wanted your battle with the Persians to go well, you needed to make the sacrifice prescribed by the cultists.  The gods didn't generally hand down rules for human behavior or rules governing human interaction.  The gods were interested in the goings on of their own world too much to care how humans acted toward one another.

Sacrificial cult worship existed in the extreme antiquity of Egypt, perhaps thousands of years before Christ's time.  Herodotus, the Greek "father of history" suspected that the most ancient Greeks had gotten their religion from Egyptians.  We know by archaeological evidence that the semitic peoples that predated the Jewish people practiced pagan ritual sacrifice.  Truly, then, paganism predates history.

I frequently think of paganism as predating humanity.

My cat leaves trinkets by her food bowl when the food gets low - some kind of prototypical sacrificial transaction, perhaps...

"We give, that we might receive."

Next time, we'll explore the collision between paganism and Abrahamic monotheism that occured in Palestine only decades before Christ's birth.

------------------------------

Matthew 5:7

7 Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.

------------------------------

Jesus' Saying #11 is Beatitude #5 today in our continued reading.  The Fifth Beatitude constitutes the fifth hard clue we have as to Jesus Christ's morality.

Today, Jesus blesses the merciful among humanity, and promises that they will be shown mercy in the future.

Let's go back to the dictionary:

mercy: noun - compassion or forgiveness shown toward someone whom it is within one's power to punish or harm.

"Compassion or forgiveness."

In a world that values strength through force and the dominion of vengeance above all other things, Jesus' radical doctrine is that the merciful are blessed and justified.  The compassionate and the forgiving are blessed and justified.

Jesus' injunction to forgive our fellow human whatever misdeed they may do to us begins here, I would say.***

As with the other Beatitudes, we can see an opposite side to the coin of this saying.  If the merciful (the compassionate and forgiving) are blessed, then the merciless (the uncompassionate and the unforgiving) are not blessed and are not justified.

Jesus is issuing his moral rule to his followers immediately here in the Sermon on the Mount.  Forgiveness, poverty, meekness, mournfulness, and a desire for justice - all these Jesus elevates as ideals.

We'll soon start a new list to run parallel with our "Sayings of Christ" list.  The new list will be "The Ideals of Christ."  We'll work on that for next time.  In the interim, I will be focusing my inner thoughts on these already revealed ideals: forgiveness, poverty, meekness, mournfulness, and a desire for justice.

If you want to give it a try with me, try focusing on those ideals until next time.

Thank you so much for reading.  Please share this writing.

Love.
-------------------------

* pantheon: noun - all the gods of a people or religion collectively.

** The math of this kind of sacrifice still doesn't totally work out to me.  "Hey God, I'm giving you this beautiful delicious pig.  Oh wait... nevermind... I'm eating it.  Yum."  It's like giving your pig, and eating it, too.

*** Yes, Jesus makes an injunction that his followers forgive all human transgressions.  No, there will not be any exceptions to this.  Yes, this undermines all of western civilization.

-------------------------
To read what's next, click here.

To read what came prior to this, click here.

For the index of Christ's words, click here.

On Matthew 5:6

Hello, friend, and welcome back to The Moral Vision of Jesus Christ.  If you are new here, be sure to check out the Introduction to this study first, which can be found here.

Last time, as you'll recall, we highlighted ten stark differences between the synoptic gospels and the Gospel According to John.  Today, we will highlight some of the other contradictions found across the New Testament.  We're trying to highlight the fact that the books of the New Testament do not always agree with one another, and thus cannot all be said to be equally valid, God-inspired, or "correct."  We began this line of inquiry some weeks back, in response to a friend of mine having remarked that Jesus' words are no more important than the rest of the New Testament.

We here at The Moral Vision disagree with the idea that, within the context of a religion based on the teachings of Jesus, anything might be more important than the actual teachings of Jesus.

In the interest of time, let's get started.

Ten Major Differences Between Varying Books of the New Testament

1 - They are a long way off for us, but someday we will read together the accounts of how Judas Iscariot, one of the Twelve Apostles, betrayed Jesus to the Roman authorities during the Passover festival weekend in Jerusalem in 30 or 33 AD.  You probably already know the story, so we won't recount all the details of the betrayal here.  Substantive for us, at the moment, are the conflicting stories as to what happened to Judas after he betrayed Jesus to the authorities.

In Matt 27, we read the following:

3 Then Judas, his betrayer, seeing that Jesus had been condemned, deeply regretted what he had done. He returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, 

4 saying, “I have sinned in betraying innocent blood.” They said, “What is that to us? Look to it yourself.” 

5 Flinging the money into the temple, he departed and went off and hanged himself.

So in Matthew, Judas sees what he has done and is overwhelmed with guilt.  He tries to return his money to the authorities - the ransom he'd received for Christ - but they did not want it.  He goes off to hang himself.

Now, let's check out the account we find in Acts of the Apostles.  In Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 1, we read the following words, attributed to the Apostle Peter:

16 “My brothers, the scripture had to be fulfilled which the holy Spirit spoke beforehand through the mouth of David, concerning Judas, who was the guide for those who arrested Jesus. 

17 He was numbered among us and was allotted a share in this ministry. 

18 He bought a parcel of land with the wages of his iniquity, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle, and all his insides spilled out.

Woah!  So which gruesome end are we to believe actually befell this man?  Did Judas hang himself?  Or did he fall down under the apparent weight of some supernatural power and subsequently explode from the abdomen, causing gore to spill out in a large circumference?

How is it that the author of Luke-Acts and the author of Matthew came to disagreement on this? 

And furthermore...

2 - ...Why do the Gospel According to Matt and the Acts of the Apostles differ in regards to who purchases this "Field of Blood" associated with Judas' death?  

Look closely again at the text we just read from Luke-Acts.  Peter tells us that Judas took the money that he'd earned in his betrayal and used it to buy a bit of land - a "Field of Blood."  But recall what the Gospel According to Matthew told us: Judas didn't buy anything with the money he'd earned.  He felt terrible about the deal and tried to return the money to the chief priests and elders who had given it to him.  When they wouldn't accept it, he simply flung the money into the temple.  Later, the chief priests and elders gather the money Judas had flung into the temple and, in Matthew, they themselves buy the "potter's field," turning it into a burial place for foreigners called the "Field of Blood." 

Again: how is it that the author of Matthew and the author of the Acts of the Apostles differ here in their recounting of history, if every word of both texts are equally valid and true?

3 - In Luke chapter 24 we find an account of Jesus Christ's "ascension," or supernatural passage into heaven in body and spirit from the earthly plane.  The author of Luke remembers it thusly:

50 Then he led them [out] as far as Bethany, raised his hands, and blessed them.  

51 As he blessed them he parted from them and was taken up to heaven. 

52 They did him homage and then returned to Jerusalem with great joy, 

53 and they were continually in the temple praising God.

Let us compare that with the account we find in Acts of the Apostles, chapter 1:

9 When he had said this, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him from their sight. 

10 While they were looking intently at the sky as he was going, suddenly two men dressed in white garments stood beside them. 

11 They said, “Men of Galilee, why are you standing there looking at the sky? This Jesus who has been taken up from you into heaven will return in the same way as you have seen him going into heaven.” 

12 Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a sabbath day’s journey away.

So, did they go right outside Jerusalem and see the resurrected Christ ascended from Mount Olive?  Or, did they travel more than twice as far outside of the holy city, all the way to Bethany, before they saw the resurrected Christ ascended?  

Did there appear men dressed in white garments, or did Christ simply get "taken up to heaven?"

Is it not strange that the author of Luke-Acts contradicts himself in this regard?

4 - Now we come to the little question of the "law" meaning, of course, the Hebrew Law as it is spelled out in the Pentateuch.  In the New Testament, we see disagreements about whether or not the law is to remain valid in the light of Jesus' teachings.

One opinion is found in the Gospel According to Matthew, chapter 5, wherein Jesus speaks:

17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. 

18 Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.

Clearly, the author of Matthew believed the old Hebrew Law to be completely intact and valid, even after Christ's ministry.

So what does Matthew's evangelist brother Mark have to say?  The author of Mark records the following, in his chapter 7:

18 He said to them, “Are even you likewise without understanding? Do you not realize that everything that goes into a person from outside cannot defile, 

19 since it enters not the heart but the stomach and passes out into the latrine?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.) 

20 “But what comes out of a person, that is what defiles."

The author of Mark is very explicit here.  Further research into the manuscript history of this bit of text is warranted, but it is clear that Mark's Jesus is indeed abolishing the law, or at least some portion of the law. 

How can this be?  Jesus, in Matthew, says that not one jot or stroke of the pen of the law will ever be abolished.  In Mark, Jesus abolishes one of the more significant sections of Jewish Law in a matter of sentences.  

Is the Hebrew Law valid or invalid?  As you may know, and as we will learn, this question was one the earliest Christians struggled with almost immediately.

5 - Seasoned readers will remember some weeks back when we learned about the Book of Enoch while we were looking for the nearly non-existent scriptural story of Satan.  To refresh you, the Book of Enoch is a work of Old Testament Apocrypha, that is, a work of Jewish religious literature that was not accepted into the "canon" of the Jewish Scripture.  The Book of Enoch was widely known and read in the first and second centuries AD.

I recall the Book of Enoch here because of a particular passage we find in the New Testament canon.  From the Letter of Jude:

14 Enoch, of the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied also about them when he said, “Behold, the Lord has come with his countless holy ones 

15 to execute judgment on all and to convict everyone for all the godless deeds that they committed and for all the harsh words godless sinners have uttered against him.”

Here, Jude is quoting Enoch.

Does this strike you as odd?

Let's follow the logic through.

If the Letter of Jude is canonical, then to many modern Christians, the Letter of Jude is the inerrant word of God, trustworthy in every way, in every word.  

If the Letter of Jude quotes The Book of Enoch authoritatively, then God himself quotes Enoch authoritatively.

But... why would God quote from scripture that was not correct?  

And... if it is correct, than why isn't The Book of Enoch part of the canon?

I encourage you to ruminate on these questions.

6 - The ritual immersion of one's body in water in order to purify oneself for God, or "baptism," is a fairly unique practice among the world's ancient religions.  One is hard pressed to find ancient instances of this behavior outside of Judaism and Christianity.  Baptism was part of the foundation of Christianity from the very beginning, and there were a diversity of methods among early Christians by which a community might baptize their faithful.

There were a plurality of methods among the early Christian communities in part because scripture presented a plurality of methods.  Again, this time in regards to baptism, we see the New Testament disagreeing with itself.

In Matt 28:19, after his resurrection, Jesus tells his men how he wants things to be done after he is gone.  He tells them to "make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit."

Compare that with Acts 2:38, wherein we find Peter giving his "Pentecost Sermon," which we've discussed before.  Peter is exhorting the crowd in Jerusalem to become members of the Jesus Movement.  He tells them "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins."

Perhaps this is a thin hair to be splitting, but the baptism that Jesus prescribes in Matthew does not match the one that Peter seems to be offering only a few weeks later in Acts.  One is in the name of Jesus Christ, one is in the name of The Trinity.  Which of the two are valid, then?

Shall we baptize "in the name of Jesus Christ," or "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit?"

7 - You can't get far conversing with many American Christians before you hear them saying emphatically that it is by "faith alone" that they are saved, and not by "works."  They usually say this in order to disparage the habits of other Christians outside of their denomination.

They might cite the oft quoted John 3:16 as evidence of the correctness of their stance on "faith vs works."  Then again, they might cite Paul's letter to the Romans, chapter 3, where Paul says "we consider that a person is justified by faith apart from works of the law."

The contradiction can be found in James 2:17: "... faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead."

The Epistle of James is traditionally attributed to James, the brother of Jesus.  James died in the 60's AD, which would make this epistle one of the very oldest Christian documents, if tradition were true.  James says that faith without works is dead.  Paul says faith saves, regardless of works.

How can the New Testament be, through and through, the inerrant word of God if it disagrees so obviously about such a seemingly critical facet of Christian life?

How does one attain salvation?  Through faith?  Or through faith and works?

We ask.

8 - According to the New Testament, Jesus appeared to his Apostles after he was resurrected from the dead.  There are multiple accounts of this among our texts, and they do not always agree with one another.  For example, in the First Letter to the Corinthians, Paul reiterates to his readers the aspects he deems to be "of first importance" to the Christian faith:

"...that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures; that he was buried; that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures; that he appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve."

 Smash-cut to Matt 28:16-17:

16 The eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had ordered them. 

17 When they saw him, they worshiped, but they doubted.

Note the discrepancy in the number of Jesus' followers as mentioned.  Again, maybe this is a thin hair to be splitting, but one text says "eleven" and the next says "twelve."

The two are mutually exclusive.  He can't have appeared to them first in a group of eleven and then appeared to them first again in a group of twelve.  It would have to be one or the other.  It would appear that either A) some percentage of the New Testament was not dictated directly by God or B) God's personality is fractured and has turned against itself.

9 - I am not sure we've had the occasion to discuss the conversion of Saul of Tarsus here yet.  For anyone not in the know, Saul of Tarsus is what the Apostle Paul was called before he decided to change his name and become a Christian.  Long story short, Saul was on the "road to Damascus" to persecute some Christians when he was knocked to the ground by a flash of supernatural light.  The light was followed by the voice of Jesus.  Saul was struck temporarily blind by the event, causing him to convert to the Christian cause.

On the road to Damascus, Saul had travelling companions.  In the Acts of the Apostles, there are two different accountings of Paul's conversion.  Of interest to us here is the reaction of his travelling companions to the supernatural event as it unfolds for Saul.

Acts 9:7, a third person account of Paul's conversion, says:

The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, for they heard the voice but could see no one.

Acts 26:13-14, a first-person retelling by Paul, reads in part:

13 At midday, along the way, O king, I saw a light from the sky, brighter than the sun, shining around me and my traveling companions.  

14 We all fell to the ground and I heard a voice saying to me in Hebrew, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?

Here we have the same book, let alone a set of books, disagreeing with itself.  

Again, in the face of the claim that The Holy Bible is one-hundred percent the inerrant word of God, we must ask: did Saul's friends fall to the ground with him, or did they remain standing, dumbfounded?

10 - For our last item today, we've dug up a little gem from Romans.  I know that we've spoken very little about Paul's Letter to the Romans before.  Within a couple of years, we will know Romans in and out.  For now, you don't need to know much about it.  Just read Romans 7:1-6.  Here it is:

1 Are you unaware, brothers (for I am speaking to people who know the law), that the law has jurisdiction over one as long as one lives? 2 Thus a married woman is bound by law to her living husband; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law in respect to her husband. 3 Consequently, while her husband is alive she will be called an adulteress if she consorts with another man. But if her husband dies she is free from that law, and she is not an adulteress if she consorts with another man. 

4 In the same way, my brothers, you also were put to death to the law through the body of Christ, so that you might belong to another, to the one who was raised from the dead in order that we might bear fruit for God. 5 For when we were in the flesh, our sinful passions, awakened by the law, worked in our members to bear fruit for death. 6 But now we are released from the law, dead to what held us captive, so that we may serve in the newness of the spirit and not under the obsolete letter.

Everything makes some sense up until verse 4.  At that point, things break down, and it becomes difficult to understand the metaphor.  The writing and the thought being conveyed are premature, to say the least.

This selection smacks of what we term, in the modern era, "word-salad."  The beginning of Romans 7 reads like nonsense.  According to many Christians, this word-salad is the inerrant word-salad of the Almighty God.

I defy anyone to make exhaustive sense of this section of text.

This concludes our list.

---

So there you have it.  The divided nature of the New Testament shows us that it cannot be taken for granted as being "the word of God," because it is full of disagreement, contradiction, and cognitive-dissonance, none of which should affect a perfect being.

That's a milestone for us, so let's say it once more: the New Testament disagrees with itself so much that it is not remotely believable that it all came from one being, Almighty or not.  The truth must be, then, that the texts at hand were created by multiple distinct minds who wrote freely of their own accord.

Modern Christians say that every word of the New Testament is equally important.  To them, Jesus' words in the Gospels aren't necessarily any more important than anything written in Romans or in Revelations, because the whole thing is divinely dictated.  In this belief, modern Christians are wrong, and their own scriptures prove it.

The truth is that the most important words in the New Testament, if we really want to follow Jesus, are the ones that we can say "probably describe the prescriptions of the historical Jesus."  Since words probably describing the prescriptions of the historical Jesus appear almost exclusively in the Gospels, the Gospels are the most important texts we have when it comes to knowing what Jesus Christ taught, and thus what Christians ought to be doing with their lives.

I'm not sure that we'll pursue this line of thought any further after today.  At least not for a while.  I pray this hasn't offended anyone.  I assure you that I do not take this work lightly.

Back to our gospel reading.

------------------------------

Matthew 5:6

6 Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be satisfied.

------------------------------

The Beatitudes continue.  This is the fourth Beatitude that Jesus gives the world, here at the very outset of his ministry.  Remember that a "beatitude" is a "great blessing," and that "The Beatitudes" are the very first thing Jesus teaches in The Bible.

In today's reading, Jesus blesses those who "hunger and thirst for righteousness."  The original Greek word here is "dikaiosuné," which means "righteousness" but could also be translated as "justice" or "fulfillment of the law."

Today, Jesus blesses those who want for what is right and just.  He conversely does not bless those who do not pine for said justice.  

In this fourth Beatitude, Jesus is telling his followers that they should not be at rest as long as justice has yet to be had.  Jesus is also telling those who have been treated unjustly by the world that a better day is near for them.  

He is saying that he prefers people who have their hearts and minds on the conditions of the marginalized of society.

Isn't it interesting that these Beatitudes are the first things Jesus says in the Bible?

If Jesus thought that there was an eternal hell to be avoided by the following of a series of cryptic and arbitrary rules, wouldn't he open up his teaching with that?  Wouldn't the first thing he said in his public ministry be something like "hell is a real place, and I really don't want you to go there, so here are the concrete steps you need to take to avoid that?"

If Jesus thought he was God, and wanted to be worshipped as God by his followers, wouldn't he start out his ministry explaining that he is God, and the steps that he wanted taken in his worship?

What do you think?

Why does Jesus start out teaching about desiring justice, and being meek, and being poor, and what does this say about his moral vision?

Sorry about all the rhetoricals.  We'll see you next time.  Thank you so much for reading.  Please share this writing.

Love.

-------------------------
To read what's next, click here.

To read what came prior to this, click here.

For the index of Christ's words, click here.

On Matthew 5:5

Welcome back to The Moral Vision of Jesus Christ.  If this is your first time here, or you need to remind yourself of the distinct and specific purposes for this endeavor, you can become better acquainted by reading the Introduction, which can be found here.

It is Easter Sunday as I write this.  Happy Easter!

Let's dig right in.

You've heard me use the phrase "synoptic gospels" over and over again for months now, but we've yet to go after the etymology on this terminology.  Allow me to remedy that.  The word "synoptic" is from the ancient Greek "sunopsis," or "sun" (together) and "opsis" (seeing).  The word synoptic, then, means "having a common view."

Recall that "synoptic" is the word we use to describe the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke.  All people well versed in the gospel will understand why those three gospels are set apart as "having a common view" and why the Gospel of John is not included in that list.  The Gospel of John has an uncommon view, relative to the other gospels.  There is no way around this fact.

To be sure, there are differences between the synoptic gospels themselves.  The synoptics do not always agree in chronology or geography, and there are anecdotes, stories, and parables that appear in some synoptic gospels and not others.  But the differences between the synoptics themselves pale in comparison to the differences between the synoptics as a set and the Gospel of John.

Today, we'll do a brief overview of ten differences between John and the synoptics.  We're going to take these rapid fire right now, because all of this is overview for more detailed work we will do later.

Ten of the Major Differences Between John and the Synoptics

- 1 - The first event in the synoptic gospels is the birth or baptism of Jesus.  The first event in the Gospel of John is the creation of the universe.  The scope of John is immediately far beyond what the synoptics ever set out to accomplish.

- 2 - In two of the three synoptics, Jesus birth is described as being to a virgin, whereas the word "virgin" is not mentioned anywhere in the Gospel of John.  John contains no narrative of the birth of Christ at all.

- 3 - In the synoptic gospels, Jesus is shown doing lots of exorcisms.  The Gospel of John shows Jesus performing a grand total of zero exorcisms.

- 4 - In the synoptic gospels, Jesus speaks frequently in parables.  All of the well known parables of Jesus are from the synoptic gospels.  These include:

- The Parable of the Sower, found in Matt, Mark, and Luke.
- The Parable of the Mustard Seed, found in Matt, Mark, and Luke.
- The Parable of the Wicked Husbandman, found in Matt, Mark, and Luke.
- The Parable of the Lost Sheep, found in Matt and Luke...
- ...and many others.

There are no true parables in the Gospel of John.

- 5 - The synoptic gospels show Jesus' ministry lasting for one year.  The Gospel of John inexplicably extends this figure to three years.

- 6 - The famous incident during which Jesus knocked over the tables of those engaged in commerce inside of The Second Temple, which led to his execution, occurs at the beginning of Jesus' ministry in the Gospel of John.  In the synoptic gospels, Jesus' assault on the capitalists occurs near the very end of his ministry.

- 7 - In the synoptic gospels, Jesus has his last supper with his men the night before Passover, and is killed on Passover.  In John, Jesus has his last supper with his men the night before the night before Passover, and is killed on the Day of Preparation for Passover.

- 8 - In the synoptic gospels, Jesus talks again and again about the poor and the suffering of the world.  In the Gospel of John, he almost never mentions these unfortunates.

- 9 - In the synoptic gospels, Jesus almost never references himself and does not seek to build himself up.  In the Gospel of John, Jesus cannot stop from referring to himself nor from building himself up.

- 10 - In the synoptic gospels, Jesus says salvation is gained by good works - by feeding the hungry and by clothing the poor, etc.  In the Gospel of John, Jesus says that to be saved, one must only believe that Jesus is the unique Son of God.  Allow me to reiterate: the Jesus in the synoptic gospels disagrees with the Jesus in the Gospel of John as to how Jesus' followers might attain salvation.

This list of differences goes on, but these are some of the more critical ones.

A few sessions ago, we started down our current path of inquiry on account of something a friend of mine had told me.  Recall that I had asked my friend if the words of Jesus didn't naturally take precedence over everything else in The New Testament.  My friend had responded that "the entire New Testament was divinely inspired.  The New Testament is the inerrant word of God, and thus all of its text is equally important."

To push back at this notion my friend holds, we've made an overview of the plethora of apocryphal Christian texts that were available as early as 250 AD, and wondered about the nature of "canon."  Now, we've highlighted some of the glaring differences between the synoptic gospels and the Gospel of John.  Next time, we will look at The New Testament more broadly and continue highlighting inconsistencies, anomalies and straight-up-disagreements between texts in this collection.  Through all of this, we believe we will have shown that the New Testament, just like any other historical work of language, bears intense scrutiny and even distrust, not blindly unquestioning belief.

If the entire New Testament is equally valid and was entirely dictated by God, than God is divided against itself.

How can God be divided against itself?

Let's get back to our gospel reading.

------------------------------

Matthew 5:5

5 Blessed are the meek,

for they will inherit the land.

------------------------------

Today, we have Jesus Saying Number Eight, which is also Beatitude Number Three.  Recall that in the Beatitudes, Jesus seems to be calling out the righteous among humanity.  In the First Beatitude, Jesus blessed the poor and expressed his preference for them.  In the Second, he blessed those in mourning, expressing his preference for them.  Now, in the Third Beatitude, he blesses the meek, calling them out as morally superior to the non-meek, and proclaiming that "they will inherit the land."

This saying is so straightforward.  It cannot be confused.  Jesus wants his followers to be meek in their earthly lifetime because he believes his followers will gain significant reward for attaining sufficient meekness.

"Meek" can be defined as "quiet, gentle, and easily imposed upon," or as "submissive."

Easily imposed upon...

I like this Beatitude.  It might be the most important thing, to me, that we've read together so far.  Beatitude Number Three perfectly fits with what we know about the historical Jesus.  This saying gets near the very heart of Jesus' emerging philosophy.

I have experimented with levels of meekness in my own life.  I will not claim to be "meek" by nature, but I will claim the capacity to occasionally lever my mind and heart into a position of temporary meekness through some effort.  I can report that all of my limited experimentations with meekness have yielded wildly positive results.

I am going to meditate this week on being quiet, gentle, easily imposed upon, and submissive.  I don't want to say much else about this morsel of Christian morality.  It really is too perfect to bear much talking about.

Blessed are the meek.

Next time, we'll continue digesting the rich vein of moral data we call The Sermon on the Mount by reading Beatitude Number Four.  With each passing session, now, our understanding of Jesus Christ's teachings will be directly advanced.  We are in the thick of it now.

Happy Easter again.  Thank you for reading.

Love.

-------------------------
To read what's next, click here.

To read what came prior to this, click here.

For the index of Christ's words, click here.

On Matthew 5:4

Hello.  Welcome to The Moral Vision of Jesus Christ, the most intensive gospel study you will ever read.  If you would like to be introduced to this study properly, start at the beginning with the Introduction.

Last time, if you'll recall, we learned what beatitudes are ("great blessings") and read the first one.  We also considered some of the apocryphal or non-canonical gospels that would have been in circulation in 250 AD.  We are chasing down the truth about the formation of the New Testament canon in response to something a friend of mine said a few weeks back.  I'd asked him if the words of Jesus weren't of prime importance compared to all other New Testament scripture.  He'd answered emphatically "no," because "the whole New Testament was dictated by God and was thus all equally important."

Sadly, with my friend, I have to disagree.

The fact is that The New Testament wasn't a well solidified and widely used set of texts until centuries after Jesus' death.  In the first few centuries, Christians produced an abundance of Christian literature.  Much of that literature is universally accepted as having been forged or written pseudepigraphically.  All of the copy was handwritten copies of handwritten copies.  The scriptures the first Christians used varied from locale to locale, and were far more numerous than the books of the New Testament canon.  The New Testament was selected from a large, varied, and historically dubious pool of texts.

All of the books of the New Testament were written by men, and none of them were written by men who actually knew Jesus Christ personally.

Today, we're going to continue our introductory study of New Testament apocrypha with some significant alternative ancient epistles and acts of the apostles.  We will also read the second Beatitude.  Forgive me if I am brief today.  Work has still been hectic, so my writing time continues to be compromised.

Enjoy.
------------------

What Did Origen Leave Out (If Rufinus Can Be Trusted)

Part II

As we've said already, it is possible that Origen of Alexandria was the first man to ever write down what we know as the 27-book list of the New Testament canon.  Origen had been a Christian scholar since youth, was imprisoned for his faith, and came to be known as a Church Father.  It is rumored through history that Origen had had himself surgically castrated for the sake of holiness.  He was in interesting character.  Much scholarship about early Christianity is owed directly to Origen.

Last time, we reviewed alternative gospels that would have been available to Origen around 250 AD, the approximate year he would have written his 27-book list.  Today, we're going to highlight a few of the alternative epistles and acts of the apostles that would have been available to Origen in his study in Alexandria.

First, the epistles, or "letters."

---

Epistles

The Epistle of Barnabas, written between 70 and 132 AD

The Epistle of Barnabas is a letter preserved from ancient times that was often attributed to Barnabas, the travelling companion of Luke.  Modern scholars do not believe that this epistle was written by Luke's Barnabas, the man who accompanied him to Cyprus and elsewhere, but think that it could have been written by another unknown Barnabas.

The text contains a treatise on the Old Testament as harbinger of Christ.  It negates significant swaths of Jewish tradition in its interpretation of the Old Testament through Christian eyes.  Bible scholar Bart D. Ehrman said that the Epistle of Barnabas is "more anti-Jewish than anything that did make it into the New Testament."  The last few chapters of the epistle are an explanation of the "Two-Ways," which was a kind of teaching tool for people who were becoming Christian.  The Two-Ways material lays out Christian behavioral codes, for example:

19:3 Thou shalt not exalt thyself, but shalt be lowly minded in all
things. Thou shalt not assume glory to thyself. Thou shalt not
entertain a wicked design against thy neighbor; thou shalt not admit
boldness into thy soul.

The humility prescribed here is attractive.

The First Epistle of Clement, written in the late 1st century

The First Epistle of Clement is one of the oldest known Christian texts that isn't in the New Testament canon.  It is traditionally attributed to a man named Clement of Rome, whom the Catholic Church claims was a Pope.  Monarchical bishoprics didn't exist at that time yet, though, which makes Clement's Popehood impossible.

The Epistle was written to the church community in Corinth in response to their having recently deposed some of their church elders from their positions of authority.  The letter implores the community to restore the leaders to their positions of power.

This epistle was read aloud in Corinth from time to time for perhaps centuries, but was then lost to history for a period before its rediscovery in the 17th century.

The Epistle to Seneca the Younger, written in the 4th century

The Epistle to Secenca the Younger is a series of correspondence between the Apostle Paul and the ancient Roman stoic philosopher Lucius Annaeus Seneca.  The body of work, in total, contains eight letters from Seneca and six replies from Paul.  For centuries, they were accepted as legitimate, but today they are universally regarded to be forgeries.

Here is an example of one of the letters that this pseudo-Seneca wrote to this pseudo-Paul:

I know that you are not so much disturbed on your own account by my letter to you on the showing of your letters to Caesar, as by the nature of things, which so calls away the minds of men from all right learning and conduct -so that I am not surprised, for I have learnt this for certain by many examples. Let us then act differently, and if in the past anything has been done carelessly, you will pardon it. I have sent you a book on elegance of expression (store of words). Farewell, dearest Paul.

Modern Bible scholars will point out the relative "poverty of thought and style" in this text, compared to Paul and Seneca's actual writings.  While this one wouldn't have been sitting on Origen's bookshelf in 250 AD, I still thought its mention here necessary, because I like the stoics.

The Letter to the Smyrnaeans*, written c. 107 AD

Unlike the letters between Paul and Seneca, The Letter to the Smyrnaeans very well could have been on Origen's bookshelf.  Written by Ignatius of Antioch, The Letter to the Smyrnaeans is a polemic against docetism, which had apparently crept up in Smyrna.  Remember, docetism is the belief that Christ did not suffer or die in a real physical way.  The docetic Jesus appears to suffer and die, but does neither.

The Letter to the Smyrnaeans is special in that it is the first recorded use of the term "Catholic Church" that historians know of.  Check out the paragraph in question:

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

Also of interest here is the mention of love-feasts, which are also known as agape-feasts, which are just a large communal meal among Christians.  Given its historicity and interesting subject matter, we will certainly be studying The Letter to the Smyrnaeans in more depth at a later date.

The Letter to the Trallians, written in the early 2nd century

The Letter to the Trallians is another letter by Ignatius of Antioch, this time addressed to the church in Tralles, in what is modern Turkey.  Interesting about the letter is that it was written during the last period of Ignatius' life, when he was in custody of the Roman authorities and en route to Rome to be executed by being fed alive to hungry lions.  Interesting about him being fed to the lions is that Ignatius himself had predicted that he would be thrown to the beasts.

The Trallians had sent their bishop to see and comfort Ignatius on his journey to death, and the letter was written back to the community by Ignatius in thanks.

Here, from the letter, Ignatius speaks on his personal humility:

I have great knowledge in God, but I restrain myself, lest, I should perish through boasting. For now it is needful for me to be the more fearful; and not give heed to those that puff me up. For they that speak to me [in the way of commendation] scourge me. For I do indeed desire to suffer, but I know not if I be worthy to do so. For this longing, though it is not manifest to many, all the more vehemently assails me. I therefore have need of meekness, by which the prince of this world is brought to nought.

Acts of the Apostles

Acts of Andrew, written in the mid 2nd century

The Acts of Andrew is the earliest writing we have about the acts and miracles of the Apostle Andrew.  The text is noted for its serene tone, and for its lack of awareness of any kind of heterodoxy within the larger church.

The Acts of Andrew describes incredible, over-the-top miracles being worked, such as the calming of storms, survival amongst hungry predator animals, and defeating entire armies single-handedly.

The Acts of Andrew also contain an amount of moralizing, for instance when Andrew tells a woman that her illegitimate child will be "born dead:"

A woman, Calliopa, married to a murderer, had an illegitimate child and suffered in travail. She told her sister to call on Diana for help; when she did so the devil appeared to her at night and said: 'Why do you trouble me with vain prayers? Go to Andrew in Achaia.' She came, and he accompanied her to Corinth, Lesbius with him. Andrew said to Calliopa: 'You deserve to suffer for your evil life: but believe in Christ, and you will be relieved, but the child will be born dead.' And so it was.

Woah.

While being crucified at the end of the text, Andrew is miraculously still able to give three days worth of sermons from the cross before expiring.

Acts of Paul and Thecla, written in the mid 2nd century

The Acts of Paul and Thecla is noteworthy because of its treatment of women.  In the Acts of Paul and Thecla, a young virgin hears Paul preaching about celibacy and salvation and determines to be celibate.  This upsets her fiance and mother, who conspire to have Paul scourged and kicked out of town, while the girl is to be burned alive.  In the text, God comes down with a storm to save the girl from being burned.

Paul and Thecla escape and travel off together.  Along the way, they meet a man who wants to buy Thecla.  Paul says he doesn't know the girl, and the man tries to take her by force.  She is arrested for assaulting the man, and sentenced to death.  The women of the city protest as Thecla is stripped naked and thrown to the lions.  When the beasts attack, however, a particular lioness defends Thecla, and then a series of miracles see her the rest of the way through the ordeal.  Eventually, the women of the city rescue Thecla and she is returned to Paul.

This text has been derided often over the centuries for its positive take on womanhood.

Acts of Peter, written in the mid 2nd century

The Acts of Peter, regarding the actions and miracles of St. Peter after the time of Jesus, is one of the earliest acts of the apostles texts.

There is a tradition that Peter, when he was crucified in Rome, requested to be crucified upside down, because he did not feel worthy to be crucified the same as Jesus had been.  The executioners are said to have obliged.  The very first mention historians have of this tradition is found here in The Acts of Peter.

The Acts of Peter is also notable for a sort of "miracle contest" between Peter and a man named Simon Magus, described as an "angel of Satan."  Peter and Magus both basically claim that the other is performing magic to trick their respective followers, and they decide on a miracle contest.  At the culmination of the contest, Simon Magus makes himself levitate into the air in the town forum.  Peter appeals to God that the levitation be interrupted.  Sure enough, Magus falls to the ground and breaks his leg in three places.  The crowd is convinced that he is a trickster-magician, and they stone him.

Later on, Magus dies, apparently while undergoing an ancient form of surgery to fix the leg.  We will revisit this text for certain.

Acts of John, written primarily in the 2nd century

The Acts of John is a series of texts, not all of which were originally authored at the same time or by the same person, regarding the actions and miracles of John the Apostle after Jesus' time. Dating is difficult, because most of our extant manuscripts are far older than the originals they were based on.

In the Acts of John, John raises an old man from the dead. The passage is somewhat humorous in that the old man doesn't seem to appreciate having been risen from the dead, on account of his son, who had made his life difficult. Read for yourself:

...he came near to the old man and said: My Lord will not be weak to spread out his kind pity and his condescending mercy even unto thee: rise up therefore and give glory to God for the work that is come to pass at this moment. And the old man said: I arise, Lord. And he rose and sat up and said: I was released from a terrible life and had to bear the insults of my son, dreadful and many, and his want of natural affection, and to what end hast thou called me back, O man of the living God? (And John answered him: If) thou art raised only for the same end, it were better for thee to die; but raise thyself unto better things. And he took him and led him into the city, preaching unto him the grace of God, so that before he entered the gate the old man believed.

"To what end hast thou called me back?" he asks.

Funniest thing to say after being resurrected.

---

The list of known New Testament apocrypha is much longer than what we have covered in two brief sessions here.  This accounting of some of the apocrypha has been made with the goal of showing that points-of-view about Jesus, Christian cosmology, and the lives of Jesus' apostles were myriad and varied by the second century, and would have been even more so in 250 AD when the very first 27-book list of the New Testament may have been composed.

Most of the apocrypha is impossible to trace back to its original author, just like most of the canon.

Ultimately, we can know painfully little about why, exactly, some material became canon and some did not.  We do know that all of the books of the New Testament were traditionally attributed to Apostles, so "apostolic origin" is likely one of the criteria that was used.  It is also true that a text would have been more likely to be elected canon if it were widely accepted by various church communities; controversial texts of the time would have been excluded.  The texts that are included are also all very early when compared to even the earliest apocrypha, so ancient textual dating may have also been a criterion.

Not much else is known about the canon criteria.  What we do know for certain is that the canon was selected by humans from texts written by humans.  

For those of us seeking the true Moral Vision of Jesus Christ, all of the ancient texts on Jesus, apocryphal or not, bear some study.  We must, however, remain willing to logically qualify all of these texts, taking nothing for granted as we search for the morality of the historical Jesus.

We will begin to circle back to our original point, which is that the Synoptic Gospels are the most important texts we have about Jesus' life and morality, and take primacy over all other Christian texts.  To get there, we first need to thoroughly understand the fact that early Christian texts, even those found in the New Testament canon, contradict one another in many ways.  Next time, we will showcase some of the more blatant contradictions we find in the New Testament.

For now, let's get back to our gospel reading.

------------------------------

Matthew 5:4

4 Blessed are they who mourn,

for they will be comforted.

------------------------------

Recall that last time we read the first Beatitude, of which there are eight.  The Beatitudes are a series of blessings that Jesus offers to his followers at the very outset of his Galilean ministry.

The blessings given here by Jesus are specific.  In the First Beatitude, Jesus blesses the poor.  In blessing the poor, he excludes the wealthy.  The Beatitudes seem sometimes to be Jesus' way of letting the people know which among them are living righteously, and which are living outside of righteousness.

I imagine that perhaps he offers these blessings in response to the nagging questioning of his followers.  Perhaps, convinced of his wisdom or holiness, the people appealed to Jesus: "tell us, sir, who among us is most righteous?"  We certainly see his apostles behaving in a similar way later on.  Perhaps thus, Jesus was prompted to sit down and list these blessings.

He has told the people that the poor are blessed, and he has excluded the wealthy from blessing.  Now, he tells the people that those who mourn are blessed, for they will be comforted.  Those who do not mourn are excluded from this blessing.  The meaning of this blessing is somewhat more elusive than that of the first.

Can one be in constant mourning?  When we consider the mortality rate of babies, mothers, and humans in general in the first century, it is possible that many people did spend most of their lives in constant mourning.  Could it be, then, that when Jesus looked at his followers and saw how many of them were currently bereft of loved ones, he offered them this second beatitude as a situational comfort? 

Perhaps Jesus is blessing the naturally somber ones among humanity, those who carry a sober melancholy with them at all times, as if they are in constant mourning for the world itself.

Like much of the gospel, it is easier here to know what Jesus is not saying than what he is saying.  For now, we'll just count "mourning" in the "positive" column.

We will continue taking these at a slow pace next time.  Until then, happy living to you.  Thank you for reading.

Love 

-------------------------
* That's fun to say for some reason.  Smyrnaeans.  Smyrnaeans.
-------------------------
To read what's next, click here.

To read what came prior to this, click here.

For the index of Christ's words, click here.

On Matthew 5:1 through Matthew 5:3

Welcome back to The Moral Vision of Jesus Christ.

If this is your first time here, you ought to orient yourself by use of the Introduction, which can be found here.

Last week, following the work of Bible scholar Michael J. Kruger, we considered the "Homilies on Joshua," a writing by Origen of Alexandria, a Church Father.  Within the first couple of paragraphs of the Homilies on Joshua, we found what appeared to be a complete list of the 27 books of the New Testament.  We argued that this list constituted the first known reference to the New Testament canon.

It is, in fact, a matter of contention whether the 27-book list we find in Origen's Homilies was actually written by Origen, or rather was an addition by the man who originally translated Origen's works into Latin from Greek, Tyrannius Rufinus.  Theologians and scholars have been suspicious of the fidelity of Rufinus' translations almost since the day they were first published.  He was notorious for adding, redacting or amending material as he translated.  Unfortunately, we have no older copies of much Origen's work than the Latin translations of Rufinus, so much of Origen's work is only known to us through the cloudy lens of Rufinus.

For our purposes, this is all a matter of dating.  Origen might have had the 27-book list first, around 250 AD.  If Rufinus was the actual source of this list, however, then we might look at Athanasius of Alexandria's "39th Festal Letter," written in 367 AD, as our source of the first 27-book list.

The majority of scholars like the 367 AD date for the original conception of the canon.  Kruger argues that we can trust Rufinus in this case.  Assuming Kruger is correct, and Origen composed the first familiar New Testament book list in or around 250, our next question is: "what other Christian texts were in circulation at the time?"  Put another way: "What did Origen leave off of his book list?"

Today, we'll take a whirlwind tour through some, but certainly not all, of the texts that fall into this category.  After that, we'll learn what beatitudes are, and read the first one.

Enjoy.

------------------

What Did Origen Leave Out (If Rufinus Can Be Trusted)
Part I

At the time that Origen of Alexandria wrote his Homilies on Joshua, which contain perhaps the first written list of the books of our New Testament, many many Christian documents were circulating around the mediterranean for liturgical use.  Collections of texts would vary from church to church, such that churches in Rome were reading from a different group of texts than churches in Antioch, which were again using different texts than the churches in Jerusalem.  There was no agreed upon "New Testament canon" yet.

When the canon was set, the texts that did not become part of our New Testament would be relegated to the dustbin of "apocrypha."  They did not disappear instantly, but eventually they faded deep into obscurity as canon and liturgy became universally regimented.

Sadly, Origen left us no way of knowing exactly what criteria he used to separate the canonical texts from the apocrypha.  The only way to discern this in any way is to become familiar with exactly what was left out of the canon, and compare that body of work with what we know today as canon.

Modern American Christians seem to think of the New Testament as a monolithic and infinitely old thing.  They see The Bible as "the word of God," as it were - as if the King James version had fallen from the sky, etched in eternal stone, signed "God."  Most modern American Christians have not considered the implications of the truth that, maybe in 250, or maybe in 367, some human sat down and decided what was "canon," which became the "word" of their God.

Most American Christians haven't considered the implications of the facts that the four gospels were chosen from a longer list of gospels, that the epistles were chosen from a longer list of epistles, or that the Acts of the Apostles was selected from a much larger body of similar such works.

We've had the opportunity to look at some Old Testament Apocrypha, such as The Book of Enoch.  Today, we'll familiarize ourselves with some New Testament Apocrypha.  The following texts would, theoretically, have been available to Origen at the time he composed the Homilies on Joshua.  We will break this into sections across multiple installments.  Today, we'll cover apocryphal gospels.  Let's get started, shall we?

---

Gospels

The Infancy Gospel of James, written c. 145 AD

Among the texts that would have been available to Origen in Alexandria in the third century are what are known as Infancy Gospels.  Infancy Gospels are stories of Jesus that extend back in time, focusing on the childhood of Jesus, or, as in this case, the childhood of Mary.

The Infancy Gospel of James is pseudepigraphically written in the name of Jesus' brother James, but scholarly dating of the writing makes this authorship impossible.

The Infancy Gospel of James concerns the miraculous birth of Mary, the mother of Jesus.  According to this text, the birth was miraculous in that Anna, Mary's mother, was infertile when she became pregnant.  The narrative follows Mary up to the birth of Jesus.  It is unique in that few other texts concern themselves so heavily with Mary.

The Infancy Gospel of Thomas, written c. 100 AD

The Infancy Gospel of Thomas contains various stories about Jesus' childhood years.  The stories strike me as odd and funny.  For instance, in this gospel, we see a boy Jesus using his power to murder other children.  Furthermore, when the parents of one of his victims complain, he strikes them both blind.  The child-Jesus presented in this ancient text does not seem to know, at first, how to reign in his potency.

Later in the narrative, Jesus seems to use his powers for better things, such as reversing his previous murders and blindings.

The Infancy Gospel of Thomas shows us how pervasive the Superhero-Jesus paradigm was, even in the earliest forms of Christianity.  It makes some sense that Origen did not include this bizarre accounting in his canon list.

The Gospel of Marcion, written c. 100 - 150 AD

The Gospel of Marcion is basically an alternate version of the Gospel of Luke.  Most scholars think that The Gospel of Marcion was The Gospel of Luke as redacted by Marcion of Sinope during the second century.  A small group of scholars think that The Gospel of Marcion predated, and was actually a source for, Luke.  We will certainly find time to investigate both sides of this argument in detail at a later date.  For our purposes now, The Gospel of Marcion is just another codex on Origen's bookshelf.

The Gospel of Basilides, written c. 140 AD

The Gospel of Basilides was a version of the gospel used by Basilides, a Gnostic Alexandrian who taught in the early second century.  Basilides taught a docetic version of the Passion of Christ, which meant that his version of Jesus didn't suffer and die, although it was made to appear to others as though he had.

Although the text does not survive today, we know from other sources some of what Basilides wrote.  He wrote that at the time of the crucifixion, Jesus supernaturally switched forms with Simon of Cyrene, so that the authorities thought they were executing Jesus, but were actually executing Simon.  Apparently, according to Basilide's gospel, Jesus stood in the crowd looking like Simon and laughing at the ignorance of the authorities.

Why Jesus would stand laughing while someone got executed in his own stead is beyond my conception.  I believe it was also beyond Origen's imagination, who is recorded to have known of and rejected the Gospel of Basilides.

The Gospel of Thomas, written between 50 and 250 AD, depending on who you ask

The Gospel of Thomas is the apocryphal gospel modern American Christians are most likely to have heard of.

The Gospel of Thomas is what is known as a "sayings" gospel.  It is called a "sayings" gospel because it doesn't offer a narrative arc, the way the four canonical gospels do.  Rather, it merely lists things Jesus said, one after another.  There is a single expository sentence:

"These are the secret sayings which the living Jesus spoke and which Didymos Judas Thomas wrote down."  

Immediately after this, we get our first saying:

"And he said, "Whoever finds the interpretation of these sayings will not experience death." 

The Gospel of Thomas is sometimes argued to have predated Mark, the oldest canonical gospel.  It was certainly composed and in circulation by the time Origen wrote his 27-book list in 250.  We know for a fact that Origen knew of this text, as he mentions it multiple times in other writings.

We will spend substantial time with this text in the future.

The Gospel of Peter, written c. 100 - 150 AD

The Gospel of Peter was an early pseudepigraphical Christian writing that claimed to be written by Simon-Peter, Jesus' companion.  Bible scholar Bart Ehrman dates the Gospel of Peter to the first half of the second century.

The Gospel of Peter is notable in that it fairly explicitly absolves Pontius Pilate of any wrongdoing in the Good Friday affair, and places all the blame for Jesus' death on Herod Antipas, heir to Herod the Great.

The Gospel of Peter is also notable for its treatment of the Resurrection.  In The Gospel according to Peter, after Jesus' death, the scribes and Pharisees become worried that Jesus' disciples will try to steal his body and incite riots.  They ask the authorities for military help in guarding the tomb of Jesus for three days to ensure against this.  With a small centurion guard, the elders, scribes, Pharisees and others go out to watch the tomb.  During the night, two men appear from heaven and approach the tomb.  The stone that sealed the tomb rolls itself away, and the two men enter the depth.

The witnesses are amazed at this and talk amongst themselves.  Suddenly, the two men appear coming out of the tomb, supporting another man.  Behind them follows a cross, which moves on its own.  From heaven comes a question: "“Hast thou preached to them that are sleeping?”

The answer comes not from the third human figure, Jesus, but from the cross itself. "Yea," it replies.

That's right.  A self-propelled talking crucifix.

The talking cross presented in The Gospel of Peter is particularly unique to Christian literature.

The Diatessaron, written c. 160 AD

The Diatessaron is what is known as a "gospel harmony," or a work meant to harmonize multiple gospels (in this case, the canonical Matt, Mark, Luke and John) into one coherent text.  Gospel harmonies have existed basically since the gospels have existed, and people have continued to produce them over the centuries.

The Diatessaron is perhaps the most well known of the ancient gospel harmonies, and was written by a man named Tatian, who was an ascetic Assyrian Christian living in the second century.  Tatian's method for creating The Diatessaron seems to have been pretty simple: if he thought the material repeated itself, he cut it out.  Otherwise, he left it in pretty much without regard for what it would do to the story arc.  In order to fit everything together, the narrative got rearranged significantly.  About 72% of the four gospels remain in the complete Diatessaron.  Scholars debate whether or not Tatian did the original work in his native Syriac or in Greek, as only translations remain.

The Diatessaron, like many of these texts, will be an object of frequent study for us over the next few years.

---

This list of apocryphal gospels available in 250 AD is by no means exhaustive.  We know of more.  It is also certain that there were gospels circulating at the time Origen was writing that do not survive.  We understand, then, that there were an abundance of versions of the story of Jesus in 250 when Origen selected four for his list.

Next time, we'll learn that, just as there were other gospels, there were other "Acts of the Apostles" available to third century Alexandrians.  "Acts of the Apostles" was apparently as much a genre as it was a title for any particular text.  We'll see, too, that Epistles abounded in the ancient world in numbers far greater than what we now have in our canon.

For now, let's get back to our gospel reading.

------------------------------

Matthew 5:1 through Matthew 5:3

1 When he saw the crowds, he went up the mountain, and after he had sat down, his disciples came to him. 

2 He began to teach them, saying:

3“Blessed are the poor in spirit,

   for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

------------------------------

Remember that last time, Jesus was kicking off his Galilean Ministry with a kind of goodwill miracle tour around the countryside of Galilee.  I'll reiterate that we at The Moral Vision believe that the miracles were exaggerated accounts, and that rather than performing literal miracles, Jesus simply ventured about preaching a message of hope.  He helped people through real-world problems with inspired real-world solutions, and offered solace in the form of deep compassion to the oppressed and the downtrodden.  

If you believe he was actually "healing every kind of disease" by some supernatural power, that's fine too.  I say "that's fine" because, whether or not we believe in miracles, the moral prescriptions of Jesus Christ remain steadfastly the same.  The morality of Jesus is not contingent upon belief in the supernatural.

Today is a landmark day for us, though, because today, after all this time, we reach our first packet of data about Jesus Christ's Moral Vision.  Today, we witness the beginning of "The Sermon on the Mount!"

The Sermon on the Mount is the longest continuous teaching of Jesus in The New Testament.  The Sermon on the Mount is unique to Matthew among the canonical gospels.  Individual teachings from the Sermon on the Mount appear scattered throughout Luke, particularly in Luke's "Sermon on the Plain."  The Sermon on the Mount is probably the richest vein of data we will find for our specific purpose throughout this entire study.  We will ruminate on it over and over again.

At the outset of chapter five, we see that Jesus' ministry is going well.  It's going so well that Jesus witnesses "crowds" and decides to retreat to a mountain.  The crowds follow him.  The exact location of the sermon is not known for certain, but, for centuries now, a mountain just northwest of Capernaum has been venerated as the spot.  It is now known as the Mount of Beatitudes, and is the site of a Franciscan Chapel.

So... what is a "beatitude," you may ask?

The word "beatitude" comes from the Latin "beatus" meaning "blessed."  For our purposes, then, beatitude means "a great blessing."  The Beatitudes are a series of eight "great blessings" that Jesus bestows upon, or reveals to, his followers at the beginning of The Sermon on the Mount.  The Beatitudes begin here in Matthew 5:3, and we are going to take them slowly, as they all constitute critical data for us.

The First Beatitude reads: "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."

The Beatitudes all take this "blessed is... for..." format.  Jesus is telling us who he esteems as righteous, and what he believes life will yield for those righteous ones.  Here, Jesus starts out telling us that the poor are blessed, because the kingdom of heaven is theirs.

So, the very first morsel of moral data we get from Jesus in The Bible is that poor people are blessed in spirit, and are the rightful owners of the kingdom of heaven.

Is that not a powerful statement?  Does that not give us some sense of where this Galilean Ministry might be heading?  The very first actionable moral precept to come out of Jesus' mouth in the whole Bible is, basically, "poor people are more worthy of good or reward than their wealthier contemporaries."

Now we're finally in the thick of it.  Hallelujah.

Join us next time for another beatitude, and more New Testament Apocrypha!

Thank you so much for reading.  Please share this writing.

Love.

-------------------------
To read what's next, click here.

To read what came prior to this, click here.

For the index of Christ's words, click here.

On Matthew 4:23 through Matthew 4:25

Hello, and welcome back to The Moral Vision of Jesus Christ, your guide to the Gospels of Jesus.  If you'd like to start from the beginning, which is recommended for advanced users, you can find the Introduction here.

For a second time since the outset of this project, I have failed to meet the pacing requirements that I've set for myself here.  I apologize for not posting anything last week.  I worked Saturday and Sunday, making for a thirteen day work week.  I normally get my writing done on the weekend...

... I shouldn't make excuses though.  I'll work to build a buffer system into my posting so that there will be fewer subsequent interruptions.  Again, my apologies.

Anywho...

If you'll recall, last time we considered the fact that many American Christians alive today believe that the whole Bible is the literal word of God.  This led us to three questions regarding the New Testament Canon.  Those questions were:

- Who set the canon, and why was the canon not set until, at the very earliest, two hundred years after the death of Christ? 

- There were numerous other Christian texts in wide circulation at the time, many bearing striking resemblances to the the New Testament we know today.  Did the person who set the canon have some method of categorization that allowed him to determine with certainty which of the early Christian texts were authentically "the word of God" and which were not?  If so, what were the criteria he used?

- Why do God's words in The New Testament contradict one another? 

Today, we'll start out on these questions slowly by simply meeting a man named Origen.

Origen of Alexandria

In 185 or 186 AD was born a boy called Origen, whose father, Leonides of Alexandria, laborored as a professor and a openly devout Christian.  Origen was born in Alexandria, Egypt, which had once been known the Greco-Roman-world over as the premier educational and scholarly center, containing within its bounds the famed Library of Alexandria.  You might recall the events of 48 BC, when Julius Caesar inadvertently set fire to the city of Alexandria as part of a tactic against Ptolemy XIII, in the aftermath of Ptolemy's assassination of Caesar's "friend" Pompey.  The famous ancient historian Livy tells us that this fire destroyed some 40,000 scrolls in the Library of Alexandria.

Since perhaps around the time of Caesar's fires, Alexandria's fame for being the world's intellectual center had waned.  However, at the time of Origen's birth there, the city would still have been host to a relatively rich scholastic community.

We know little for certain about Origen's early life, but scholars find it likely that his father schooled him well in reading, writing, philosophy, and Christian theology as it then existed.  Leonides would make the young Origen memorize lengthy passages of scripture as part of his studies.

In 202, when Origen was about sixteen, the Emperor Septimius Severus ordered the killing of openly practicing Christians, and Origen's father was arrested.  The story goes that Origen wanted to be captured and martyred with his father, and set his mind to do just that.  To prevent him, Origen's mother hid all of his clothes so that he was totally naked with nothing to cover himself.  Origen would not go outside the home naked, and so was not able to join his father in death.

The Roman authorities executed Origen's father by beheading, and confiscated his estate.  Origen was left the patriarch of a destitute family consisting of his eight brothers and sisters and his mother.  Thankfully, Origen was given a job as a catechist at the Catechetical School of Alexandria.  Origen's spiritual life thrived there, as he began to live more ascetically, walking barefoot everywhere and only allowing himself to own one cloak.  He didn't eat meat and didn't drink alcohol, and he would fast for extended periods of time.  He spent his days teaching, studying, and writing.

Eusebius writes that Origen was one of many Christian men at that time who had purposely had himself castrated as a direct result of his reading of Matthew 19:12, wherein Jesus says:

12 "Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.”

"Incapable of marriage" is a nicer way of translating from the original Greek, "eunouchoi," which actually means "eunuch."  The gospels Origen was familiar with were almost certainly explicit in their use of the word "eunuch" here.

Although Origen was aware of the practice of self-castration among his early Christian brethren, it seems rather unlikely that the story of him castrating himself is true, especially when we see him railing against the practice from works written in his later life.

After some conflicts with Demetrius, the Bishop of Alexandria, Origen took up a permanent residence in Caesarea in Palestine.  There, he was ordained a priest and taught publicly, much to Demetrius' chagrin.  Origen continued to write prolifically.  At various times, he had to go into hiding, as persecutions of Christians became more common in the Roman Empire.

In 250, the Emperor Decius issued a decree for intense persecution against Christians, believing that they had been the cause of a recent devastating plague.  Origen was not able to find adequate hiding during this period, and was imprisoned and tortured for two years.  Upon his release from prison, he lived another year and then died in 253 AD, presumably weakened by the years of torture.

Origen is considered a "Church Father," putting him in rank among Ambrose of Milan, Augustine of Hippo, and Ignatius of Antioch.  His writings are among the most important ancient Christian theological texts, and include his "On First Principles," "Contra Celsum," and the ever influential "Hexapla."

According to Professor Michael J. Kruger of the Reformed Theological Seminary in Charlotte, NC, Origen should be credited as perhaps the very first to write down the twenty-seven book list that we now know as The New Testament Canon.  He quotes thusly from a work of Origen's called the "Homilae on Josuam":

But when our Lord Jesus Christ comes, whose arrival that prior son of Nun designated, he sends priests, his apostles, bearing “trumpets hammered thin,” the magnificent and heavenly instruction of proclamation. Matthew first sounded the priestly trumpet in his Gospel; Mark also; Luke and John each played their own priestly trumpets. Even Peter cries out with trumpets in two of his epistles; also James and Jude. In addition, John also sounds the trumpet through his epistles [and Revelation], and Luke, as he describes the Acts of the Apostles. And now that last one comes, the one who said, “I think God displays us apostles last,” and in fourteen of his epistles, thundering with trumpets, he casts down the walls of Jericho and all the devices of idolatry and dogmas of philosophers, all the way to the foundations.

This list, written by Origen perhaps around 250 AD, obviously matches with what we know today as the twenty-seven book canon.

This list in "Homilae on Josuam" is apparently the oldest extant twenty-seven book list.  We can imagine that this list predated Origen's record of it, but since we have no evidence for that, we must say the New Testament Canon did not exist in its modern form before around 250 AD.  For centuries after 250, in fact, we still see many different lists and arrangements of the Christian scripture.  It certainly wouldn't be until much later that the entire Christian world came to a consensus on Origen's list.

Jesus Christ died in 30 or 33 AD.  At the very minimum, it was between two and three centuries before The New Testament Canon began to take its familiar form.

Modern Christians frequently think of the Bible as the literal word of God, and as the salvation of the world.  Modern Christians are, by and large, unaware of Origen, or his apparent contribution as God's editor and compiler.

Next time, now that we've met Origen, we will look at the various Christian texts that would have been available to a man like Origen in those days, giving us a sense not only for what is in the canon, but what was left out.  The modern Christian may be surprised to know about the diversity of literature that existed in the early church.

For now, though, we'll get back to our gospel reading.

------------------------------

Matthew 4:23 through Matthew 4:25

23 He went around all of Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom, and curing every disease and illness among the people. 

24 His fame spread to all of Syria, and they brought to him all who were sick with various diseases and racked with pain, those who were possessed, lunatics, and paralytics, and he cured them. 

25 And great crowds from Galilee, the Decapolis, Jerusalem, and Judea, and from beyond the Jordan followed him.

------------------------------

There is quite a bit going on here in these three verses.

First, we should pay attention to where Jesus is teaching from here at the outset of his ministry.  He teaches from local synagogues.  Remember: he is worshipping with Jews, preaching to Jews, and considers himself completely Jewish.  Nowhere is this more clear than in the Gospel of Shoehorn Matthew.

While Jesus teaches, he is said to be "curing."  He is capable of curing "every disease and illness among the people."  Since our official stance here at The Moral Vision is that we do not believe in the supernatural, it is our understanding that Christ was not actually curing physical diseases.  He was more likely demonstrating social and philosophical prowess by effectively counseling people with psychological infirmities or situational pains, while generally inspiring a chronically depressed people with his hopeful words about a coming Kingdom of God.

It is imperative to understand that the validity of Jesus' reputation as a literal miracle worker will not have any bearing on his instruction to humanity, which he will very soon lay out for us in his Sermon on the Mount.  The moral vision of Jesus and its applicability to human life are the exact same whether you believe he could give sight to the blind or not.  This point is critical, and we will make it again and again as we move forward.

As this reading finishes itself out, we are told that a following developed behind Jesus immediately, and that the following consisted of a diversity of people.  People from as far away as Syria hear of his abilities and travel to Galilee to avail themselves of his counsel.

Last time, I postulated that we might spend some time looking at other ancient cases of "miracle healing" to give these verses context.  I am going to issue a rain-check on that discussion.  I promise, we will revisit it.  For now, we'll retire of our commentary here in anticipation of next time, when we will continue to learn about the New Testament Canon's formation, and then find ourselves right in the middle of some of Jesus' richest philosophical thought.

I can not wait.

Please share this writing.

Love.

-------------------------
To read what's next, click here.

To read what came prior to this, click here.

For the index of Christ's words, click here.