"Taken" and the Complexity of Love

"Jesus broke the heart of many 1st century Palestinian mothers and he hasn't stopped." Will Willimon attributed the quote to someone whose point was to urge parents to release their children to their college/university. The call to follow Jesus meant a death to other opportunities of following, including family.

I just saw the movie "Taken" with Heather. It's a story about a former gov't agent, played by Liam Neeson, whose daughter is abducted and forced into sex trafficking in Europe. It's a great action flick with all the necessary moments of justice / revenge. At one point Neeson's character is torturing his daughter's original abductor for information with electricity. In the movie, it felt right.

This past Sunday I preached on the holiness of God. I finished up the sermon with some reflections on this doctrine's practical implications for contemporary issues: sexuality, gossip, pride, and torture. I don't think torture is acceptable in any way. I knew this would rub some of my congregation the wrong way, so I acknowledged that and offered myself for a conversation on the subject. One true brother in Christ and mentor shared some thoughts with me about whether the torture of one prevents the murder of thousands. Indeed.

I wonder whether the justice of this scenario depends on the identity of the one tortured and the thousands saved. Certainly in the movie Neeson's character is driven because it was his daughter who was taken. I got to thinking about Jesus's call to abandon family to follow him. I wonder if this is the only way a society truly becomes loving: Breaking and reordering one's social commitments. Breaking and reordering one's list of those they are called to love. It obviously gets quite complex quite quickly.

I suppose this is part of the reason why the Roman Catholics don't allow their priests to marry and have children. It keeps life simpler. They are free to love all.

Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, Chapter 6

Now Bauckham turns his attention to the structure of the gospels themselves. He notes that both John and Luke structure their work with accounts from people who were with Jesus "from the beginning" (Acts 1:21-22, John 2:11). The preface to Luke's gospel, one of the most studied passages in the New Testament, records that Luke's works is from eyewitnesses who were from the beginning of Jesus' ministry. Eyewitness does not have a forensic (courtroom) meaning, but a meaning of observer of events. Bauckham focuses on this phrase, "from the beginning," because in antiquity going to the beginning of the story was important. The right start was essential, citing examples from Josephus and Polybius. What Luke has done, Bauckham suggests, is understood (examined) the story from the beginning (of Jesus) because he has spoken with people who were with Jesus from the beginning--the eyewitnesses to certain events. Not only were eyewitnesses essential to the stories, but eyewitnesses who were present from beginning to end were essential.

Can we see this principle in the gospels? Bauckham argues yes. He argues that Peter is the disciple in Mark mentioned first and last. The first mention of Peter says literally, "Simon and Simon's brother," which emphasizes Simon's name. The final mention of Peter is that the women who saw the empty tomb are to tell the disciples and Peter that Jesus is going ahead of them into Galilee. Bauckham says these uses form an inclusio that bracket everything between them as Peter's testimony.

Bauckham also sees this literary device in the gospel of John. In John the first two disciples of John the Baptist are anonymous, until Andrew is named. The other, however, remains unknown. Bauckham argues that this anonymous disciple is the Beloved Disciple and author of this gospel. A few points make the argument: first, John is written from the perspective of the ideal witness (21:24) and ideal witnesses are from the beginning, whom Jesus affirms is to testify to him (15:27). Second, Jesus turns to see the anonymous disciple following him (1:38) and at the end of the Gospel Peter turns to see the disciple whom Jesus loved following (21:20). The connotation of following is of discipleship, as is the word, "remain." (Remember Jesus' words to remain in me.) The first disciples ask Jesus where he is staying and remain with him the whole day (1:38). At the end of the gospel, Jesus tells Peter that if he wants the Beloved Disciple to remain until he comes, then Peter shouldn't worry (21:22). If this disciple is one and the same and author of John, then he has displaced Peter as the authority of this gospel, but Bauckham thinks this is more of a friendly rivalry but with a serious purpose of showing the author a qualified witness.

Bauckham also examines this device in Luke with the women. This is not surprising as Luke draws on more witnesses than just the Twelve. Luke mentions three women in Jesus' Galilean ministry (Luke 8:2-3). They reappear at 24:10, at the crucifixion. While Luke also has a Petrine inclusio, this shorter inclusio shows that Luke owes some of his special material to people other than the Twelve and Peter. The only gospel not to include such a literary device is Matthew and along with the fact that Matthew adds no names other than the ones in Mark, even dropping some of those, this gospel seems not to be as concerned with eyewitness authority as the other gospels.

After examining works by Lucius and Porphyry for the same literary device, Bauckham offers his conclusion. He says that most authoritative witnesses were present for the events narrated and they can therefore vouch for the overall shape of the story. Mark, Luke, and John all use a device to tell us this is the case for the eyewitnesses of their work.

Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, Chapter 5

"The Twelve"

What are we to think of this group that seems to be around Jesus constantly, even while he has much larger crowds in his company? No doubt they are symbolic, in number, of Israel and pertinent to Jesus' mission in their calling. Bauckham takes their role a step further, positing that this body was the group that was authoritative over the body of Jesus traditions--teaching and actions.

The lists of the twelve reflect a post-history to Jesus. Just as a genealogy forms a pre-history to a person, so a list of disciples forms a post-history. Their teaching lives on. The lists of the twelve, with small differences, cannot be to introduce them in the gospels because so many of them never reappear in the gospels, but instead serve as the source of these teachings in general. Not one of them is responsible for the traditions, but as a group they are. As a result, all of their names are important.

But if they were so important, then why are their differences? Well, suggests Bauckham, the differences are really quite minimal. All the lists (he gives a table with lists from Matt, Mark, Luke, and Acts) have three groups of four, all headed by the same name (Peter, Philip, James son of Alphaeus). Three of the four lists end with Judas--a sign that this list was developed post-mission. There are, however, a few points of difference.

One such difference is that the lists from Matthew and Mark have Thaddaeus, while Luke and Acts have Judas son of James. Could these names have referred to the same person? While some suggest that this "smacks of harmonization," Bauckham thinks it very plausible. First, individuals often bore two names. Thaddaeus seems to be a Greek name (perhaps Theodosios, Theodotos, Theodoros) which has been shortened into an Aramaic name (Taddai) and then made Greek again, Thaddaeus. The above Greek names were popular with Jews because they contained the Greek word for God (Theo). Several ossuaries (bone boxes) held Palestinian Jews who had double names, and so it would not be out of the question for Thaddaeus to be both Thaddaeus and Judas. In this event, it makes sense that a man named Judas among the twelve would need to be distinguished from Judas Iscariot and that Luke, the historian, would have official lists of the twelve, Judas son of James, when this person was often simply called Thaddaeus among the twelve.

This notion is given more credence by the fact that many of the names in the twelve are distinguished from one another using some of the categories Bauckham mentioned last chapter. Simon is given a nickname, Peter, which helps distinguish him from Simon, the zealot. These distinguishing features seem to originate in the group itself. You have paternal lines added (e.g., James son of Zebedee); paternal lines subbed into a name (Bartholomew--not likely Nathaneal from John's gospel because what makes Bartholomew handy is that Tolmai (Tholomew) is a rare name, as is Nathanael. If his name was Nathanael, you wouldn't need to distinguish him from many people.); nicknames (Peter, Simon the zealot); nickname as a name (Thomas--"twin"; other non-biblical sources call this disciple, "Judas Thomas"); place of origin added (Judas Iscariot, meaning 'of Kerioth'); and occupation (Matthew the tax collector). This last example, however, brings us to another difficulty.

Why does Matthew's list have this piece of information about Matthew, but no one else? Could the story of Levi the tax collector be about the same person as Matthew the tax collector? Bauckham judges this to be implausible. While Matthew, Mark, and Luke have the story of a tax collector called, Mark and Luke refer to this man by the name of Levi. They do not connect him with the Matthew of their lists at any point. While they simply may not have known they were the same person, getting lists and eyewitness account from different sources and not connecting the dots, this is not likely because both Matthew and Levi were fairly common names. One does not find evidence of Palestinian Jews having two common names. Bauckham suggests that the person who collected Matthew wanted to give a calling narrative for the disciple whose accounts formed this gospel and so applied the narrative of Levi, which he knew from Mark, to Matthew. It's possible that the very simplicity of the calling of Levi the tax collector could be applied to just about any tax collector, which was, evidently, Matthew's occupation. If this is true, then the redactor of Matthew was not the disciple himself, as he could have simply told his own conversion narrative.

Tombs and Tragedies

It seems that fewer and fewer are supporting the Talpiot tomb. Except for James Tabor. (An anonymous person alerted me to his blog a few days ago in a comment and I've been reading it ever since. It's a study of irony, par excellence.) First, Tabor is annoyed with Witherington, Bauckham (seemingly), Bock, and all others who work to discredit the tomb. His reason is that they have rejected the evidence before considering it and are not using proper tone. The irony is that it seems Tabor has a belief in a dead and decomposed Jesus before coming to this tomb. That would skew the evidence at least as much, no? Second, Tabor's own tone gets a little edgy, himself, pointing out things he believes incredible about Witherington (but saying he's not poking fun). Third, while the evidence against the tomb continues to mount, Tabor keeps coming back to the name cluster. While this is not surprising in itself--it's the only evidence there is--the irony is so much sweeter. Tabor keeps seeking for objective, verifiable evidence and urges others to consider the evidence in a like manner. But the name cluster's power is in **narrative.** It is an amazing name cluster, to be sure, and one that warrants a second and third look, but after these looks, what's left is only a compelling narrative of a family united in their deaths and loyalty to a dead Messiah. The irony fleshes out most easily now: How do you verify a story?

Let me finish this off by turning Tabor's question back at Tabor. Tabor keeps pointing out the level of protest, interpreting it to be necessary apologetic by those simply committed to a faith that is now (literally) dead. The more one protests, the more emotional and less objective one has become. But this itself is an interpretation of the act of protest and a form of protest! Methinks the charge of too much protest cuts two ways...

The tragedy is that I cannot write about Frances Young's tremendous lecture at the WTS on Friday and will have to wait until tomorrow.

Jesus was married, had a son, and we have found his tomb....

Or at least Simcha Jacobivici would have us believe. Check out the article from the link below. I have posted this response on my church's blog.

Last night I went to bed and things were pretty normal. This morning I wake up and see on Good Morning America and read in the Toronto Star a project that claims to have found the family tomb of Jesus, along with bone boxes ("ossuaries") with inscriptions of names like, Jesus son of Joseph, Judah son of Jesus, Mariamne (a version of Mary), Mary, and Matthew. You can read the article at http://www.thestar.com/News/article/185708. If you haven't heard about this story, I'm sure you will before too long.

Now, I am always for Christians examining their faith and never burying their heads in the sand. If you saw the stories and had some doubts raised, that's not a bad thing. Just keep reading and doing some research and see where your conclusions go. I have done some initial thinking and recorded my thoughts below. Here are some of the facts of the story:

1. A tomb was found with certain inscriptions on bone boxes in the Talpiot neigbourhood of Jerusalem. It was uncovered in 1980 when building an apartment.

2. The bone boxes had inscriptions with biblical names (James, Joseph, Jesus, Mary, Mariamne, etc.)

3. DNA testing is being done to see if the genetic material found is related.

The producers of the documentary are claiming that this is evidence of this being Jesus' family tomb and showing that the biblical Jesus of Nazareth was married and had a son. A few things immediately undercut the evidence used to arrive at this conclusion.

First, Joseph's (Jesus' father by his marriage to Mary) family was from Bethlehem. (Remember them going to do a census that we read every Christmas?) Joseph then raised his family in Nazareth, about 80 miles from Jerusalem. If this tomb is the family tomb of Jesus, started by Joseph's burial, then Joseph was buried 80 miles from his family, alone, in a city his ancestors didn't come from. That's very strange and incredibly unlikely. Jesus' brother Joseph was martyred in Jerusalem, but, according to the early church historian Eusebius, his burial was not near the neighbourhood of Talpiot, where this tomb was discovered.

Second, the names found in the tomb were very prevalent. Joseph was the second most commonly recorded name, about 1/10 having this name. Greater than 1/5 were named Mary or Mariamne! (About 1/26 were named Jesus.) Having such names connected is no big surprise.

Third, these documentary makers are using DNA testing that was not available when the tomb was originally discovered. This DNA testing, I'm sure, will show a family relation between the people who were once buried in this tomb. What it cannot show, however, is the connection to the family of Jesus of Nazareth. For that to happen, there would need to be another sample confirmed from Jesus' family and then tested against the DNA found in the tomb. Nobody has that.

Fourth, if you read the Star article, the film maker, Simcha Jacobivici, says that "What convinced people in the New Testament of the resurrection was Jesus's appearances, not his disappearance from the tomb." This just isn't the whole truth. The earliest manuscripts of Mark, which was the earliest gospel written, end with the empty tomb. (If you read the NIV, like I do, you'll see that it says this after Mark 16:8.) An empty tomb caused all kinds of bewilderment for the earliest Christians, Romans and Jewish authorities. (You'll recall that the Roman guards and Chief Priests come up with the story to say that the disciples have stolen the body, once the tomb is empty [Matt. 28:13].) This doesn't mean that Jesus didn't appear, as Matthew, Luke, and John attest that he did. What it does mean is that Jesus' appearances only get taken seriously if there is already the knowledge that the tomb is empty and the ability to check to see if it is.

For a better explication of some of these arguments, see benwitherington.blogspot.com. It is obvious that Dr. Ben has shaped part of what I've written above.