The Beatitudes

Ever since a co-worker mentioned to me back in the mid-1990s that in his opinion the traditional English translations of the Beatitudes had lost their power to inspire, I have been trying my hand off and on at producing a version in English that would capture the radical quality of Jesus’s teaching. Apparently, part of the difficulty in rendering them is that the Beatitudes challenged conventional wisdom so deeply during his life that very early attempts were made to tone down their message. Also, I’ve come to think that a certain element of Jesus’s humor was present in these words of encouragement to the destitute and abandoned. Perhaps what is hardest of all to accept in Jesus’s message is his belief that the most wretched members of society have somehow achieved a kind of angelic status, and that everyone should learn from them and in fact aspire to be poor. Far from fulfilling our obligation to give some support to the poor, we should give everything to them. In any case, here is one of my more recent attempts at rendering the anger, humor, and visionary quality of these teachings:

*

*

*

Jesus said–

Blessed are the beggars; God has put his kingdom in your cup!

Blessed are the starving; God groans with your hunger!

Blessed are the miserable; God winks at you!

*

Photo: The Seven Miracles; Author, Moros; WikiCmns; Public Domain.

Peace on Earth

 

   ♦ Peace on Earth

        Goodwill to All Men ♦

♦

♦

♦

♦

♦

♦

♦

♦

♦

Image: The Nativity (Byzantine Icon); WikiCmns; CC 3.0 Unported; User: Tetrakys

The Widow’s Mites

The Lesson of the Widow’s Mites  (Mark 12:42-44; Luke 21:1-4) is a moment in the Gospels that, for all its simplicity, is difficult to interpret. While Jesus and his followers are resting in the Temple precincts, a widow comes and contributes two small coins to the Treasury (these coins were the least valuable then in circulation). Jesus tells his followers that because she has given away all the money that remained to her, she has given more than any other person, no matter how wealthy.

An affecting scene, certainly, but then the problems start to pile up. How does Jesus know that these were the last coins she possessed? What of the ironic parallel to Leviticus 12:8, which commands new mothers to sacrifice two turtledoves in thanks to God? And, above all, what of the story’s effect on women? Does it make sense for them to surrender their last worldly goods, especially if they are widows and, if young, as likely as not with children?

What has been left out in this story is the central element of Jesus’s teaching about poverty–his followers must give up all their money if they are to follow him. Complete trust is necessary if one is to enter the Kingdom of God. From this perspective, in exchange for giving up a pittance, the woman is gaining God’s salvation–and the protection available to her as a member of Jesus’s community.

Here, then, is the episode in the KJV, followed by my reconstruction:

KJV

And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much.

 ⁴²And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing.

 ⁴³And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury:

 ⁴⁴For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.

RT’s reconstruction

A widow appeared and added two insignificant coins to the Treasury. Jesus called his disciples and said, “In truth I say, this woman has given more than all those who have contributed to the Treasury. And because she has given all she had, all her wealth, she has entered the Kingdom of God.” And the woman became one of Jesus’s followers.

RT

*

Image: The Poor Widow’s Offering; Frederick Goodall; WikiCmns; Public Domain.

The Tax to Caesar

“Ἀπόδοτε οὖν τὰ Καίσαρος Καίσαρι καὶ τὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ τῷ Θεῷ”

“Give Caesar what is Caesar’s and God what is God’s” — Mark 12

♦

More than any other episode in the Gospels, this response to a trick question about imperial taxes convinced me that there is something extraordinary about Jesus.

1) The first thing to know about this episode is that it is widely attested: it is included in all of the synoptic gospels (SynG), the gospel of Thomas (GTh), and the Egerton fragments (EgrF), with a loose parallel in John 3 (GJn).

2) Using this information about witnesses, let’s look at the episode section by section:

a) And they send unto him certain of the Pharisees and of the Herodians, to catch him in his words.
And when they were come, they say unto him, Master, we know that thou art true, and carest for no man: for thou regardest not the person of men, but teachest the way of God in truth: Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not? Shall we give, or shall we not give? (Mk 12:13, 14 & 15a, KJV)

This is the most widely attested section; only GTh (which has “They said to him”) does not contain it. There can be no doubt that Jesus is in trouble: he is the victim of an intellectual ambush. A group of collaborators with the established authorities accosts him in the temple precincts and springs a trap on him: should we pay our taxes? If Jesus answers “Yes,” then he will be seen as a collaborator himself; if he answers “No,” he will be seen as a rebel against the Romans and Herodians and arrested.

The tax in question was a capitation or head tax, that is, a tax on each individual. This tax was collected by contractors whose only obligation was to extract the tax from the people and send it to the local authorities, who in turn paid it to the imperial treasury. The tax was levied regardless of the ability to pay, and the methods used to force the community to pay could be brutal. People in Judea had rioted over the tax, and the inception of the Zealot movement has been dated to its imposition.

b) But he, knowing their hypocrisy, said unto them, Why tempt ye me? bring me a penny, that I may see it. And they brought it. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? And they said unto him, Caesar’s. (Mk 12:15&16)

This section is attested in four of the witnesses: the SynG and GTh. The most important point to hold onto here is that the collaborators, by questioning Jesus about a subject he had given a great deal of thought to, had their own trap turned against them. Jesus was well aware of the anger that imperial taxes roused–and of their injustice. Money in general was one of his chief themes; Jesus saw it as an attempt to escape from God’s Rule by putting trust in men and their devices for protecting themselves: “It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God.” So it is plausible that Jesus showed no alarm at the question and asked for a coin. Here he is at his most brilliant, improvising in the middle of a deadly debate.

They produced the coin, and Jesus set up his own trap, asking whose image is on the coin. By calling attention to the image on the coin, Jesus reminded his questioners that they were breaking the Second Commandment by even possessing the coin. In a single stroke he destroyed their credibility: how could they be masters of the Law when they were guilty of such an elementary oversight?

c) And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s. (Mk 12:17)

This is the least well attested section; the response in this form is recorded in the SynG only; GTh has “Give to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, to God the things that are God’s, and to me the things that are mine.” GJn and the EgerF, moreover, record lengthy responses to the questioners, signaling the possibility of a different tradition regarding the end of the story. A plausible guess, since even in the synoptics Jesus makes a brief remark before delivering his punchline, is that he did in fact take a few seconds to gather himself, probably by referencing scripture, before delivering the coup-de-grace. (And the EgerF break off before the ending; perhaps they contained some form of the teaching.)

Much has been made of Jesus’s teaching, one of the most memorable in the Gospels. Should we pay our taxes, as our due to the realities of the world, or withhold them in protest against the corruptions of government? Jesus would have counseled neither course: to enter the Kingdom of God, we must give all our money to the poor and follow Jesus. As the story of the second rich man in the gospel of the Nazarenes makes clear, this is never an easy choice (especially for the rich), but it is the act that defines adherence to Jesus’s teachings–and so Jesus had little patience with those who could not find the courage to become poor themselves. If you have the money to pay your taxes, you are shirking your duty to God.

d) And they marvelled at him. (Mk 12:17)

Attested in the synoptics. I certainly did.

3) We really can’t expect a profound, well-thought answer in a situation as tense as the Tax to Caesar; what is amazing, however, is how much Jesus conveys in his brief answer, even as he extricates himself from a situation that could well have cost him his life. The rich are with us always: we can’t get rid of money, and as long as we use it, there will be people who have lots of it. What we can do is handle money (and the success and power that can come with it) gingerly, expect the rich to support the poor, elderly, crippled, mentally incompetant, and sick; and admire those people who are capable of living a good life with little or no money. Taxes themselves are not evil if they serve a good end, and they can be essential to maintaining a community’s health and cohesion. What we have a right to demand is fair, compassionate, and frugal government. But as Jesus would point out, such a Rule begins in our own hearts.   RT

*

Photo: Silver denarius w/ Tiberius’ portrait; WikiCmns; Public Domain.

Spirit & Demon: Sourcing Mark’s Gospel

 

Every reconstruction matters. No matter what kind of material we are working with–mythology, history, religious text, or contemporary news report–all the facts cannot be determined. Something of the event remains lost, something hidden. Our imaginations, working with things that are familiar, try to envision something that may be profoundly unfamiliar, unprecedented, even unique. Research, discussions with those who are deeply versed in a subject, letting the matter sit for a while, all can help. But what is motivating us to tell a story is an inner excitement, some memory of the story’s fire. That is what we need to share–the spark and warmth. We draw people into the circle of the story with what we can understand of the truth.

When I have told people about my interest in the Gospels and the voices that lie at their foundations, the most common response is: Why? Gilgamesh, Chinese poetry are one thing, but in the West, the four accounts of Jesus’ life, ministry, suffering, and resurrection form the root of the culture’s consciousness. What could possibly be gained by tinkering with them?

My best answer is those voices–and the one, most compelling voice that still makes itself heard, often in unexpected places, in the story. Jesus was a poet, and I think that other poets can add to our understanding of his teachings and life. I am surely not the first person to say this. We can ignore the Gospels, tell ourselves that they are someone else’s business, but if we really believe in beauty and the struggle to understand what has happened in the world, then we must, at some level, make an account of them.

*

As I explained in my recent post on the origins of Mark’s gospel, I don’t think that the traditional account of the  gospel’s origin–Mark, who was Peter’s disciple, recorded Peter’s recollection of events–is very satisfactory. Too many questions remain unanswered. But if Peter wasn’t Mark’s source for his gospel, who was?

My answer at the moment is that Mark used the Spirit and Demon sources as his foundation, braiding material from each source together to create his text. The principle distinction between the sources is that one uses the term “demon” and the other “unclean spirit.” As far as I can tell, each has a distinct voice and attitude towards Jesus and what he did. My interpretation relies on my reading of The Complete Gospels: The Scholar’s Version (Polebridge Press).

*

A. The Demon Source (SDem).  Here are the characteristics of SDem: a) a tendency to report disputations; b) an interest in the disciples; and c) the secretiveness or hidden nature and message of Jesus. SDem seems to be the older of the two sources.

◊

Here is a reconstructed passage from the SDem materials:

Four people appeared, carrying a paralytic on a mat. And [when they saw that the door was bolted,] they took the roof off and let down the man on the mat. Jesus said to him, “Son, your sins have been pardoned.” [And the man stood up, completely healed.]

But some of the scholars sitting there asked themselves, “How can he say that? He’s insulting the Most High! Only God can pardon offenses against himself!”

Then Jesus said to them, “Why do you occupy yourselves with such questions? [No healing offends God.]” [Mk 2:3-7&8b]

◊

B. The Spirit Source (SSpir)

Here are the characteristics of the Spirit Source: 1) the public nature of Jesus’ ministry; 2) an emphasis on trust; and 3) the use of the term “right away.”

◊

 And now, the SSpir materials from the passage analyzed above:

Word spread that Jesus was at Simon’s, and so many people gathered at Simon’s door that no one was able to enter. [text out] And Jesus began to speak to them. [text out] And just then four people arrived; they were carrying a paralyzed man on a mat. And when they saw that the crowd had blocked the door, they dug a hole in the roof above Jesus and so were able to lower the man down. Impressed by their trust, Jesus addressed the cripple, “On your feet, take your mat, and leave.”

Without hesitating, and in front of everyone, the man got to his feet, took his mat, and left. The onlookers were overjoyed and celebrated God, shouting out, “Who has ever seen something like that!”

[But after this, Jesus and his disciples had to withdraw,] and they began to travel through Galilee. [Mk 2:2a & 3, 4b, 5a, 10b, 11–13, 1:39a]

◊

C. A Single Gospel?

Mark’s gospel contains several other episodes that can be divided in two, and the text outs in the passage I have analyzed are hardly unique–in many places material (sermons, mostly) seem to have been removed. But what is most compelling about this understanding of Mark’s sources is the implication that SDem and SSpir are closely related, sharing many of the same episodes. Could it be that they evolved from a single, original account?     –RT

*

copyright, 2011, The Rag Tree

*

Image: Piero della Francesca, The Baptism of Christ; WikiCmns; Public Domain

The Magi

The Adoration of the Magi; Pieter Breughel the Younger; WikiCmns

 

Part 2 of my reflections on the Nativity.

Let me start by pointing out some remarkable events occurring around the time of Jesus’s birth:

1) In far away China, the Han Dynasty’s rule was interrupted for 11 years (starting in 9 A.D.) by a mini-dynasty, known as the Xin.

2) In Parthian Persia, the court was convulsed by a long dynastic struggle; in the period between 2 B.C. and 10 A.D., five monarchs (one of who was a woman and former Roman slave) ruled.

3) In 4 B.C., Herod the Great, client King of Judea (and adversary of the Persians) died.

And here is a remarkable fact connecting these events: they all happened along the Silk Road.

We don’t think too often about the influence of eastern events and religion on 1st century Palestine, but in fact, the East was an important source of both wealth and ideas. And there was also the matter of establishing the eastern border of the Roman Empire.

There was nothing simple or obvious about this border, which divided neighboring cultures and cities. Creating it wasn’t easy: in fact, Rome suffered one of its most humiliating military defeats at Carrhae (better known as Harran). Ten thousand Parthian archers & their supporting infantry defeated 40,000 Romans, killing 20,000 of them and seizing prized Roman Eagles. The date? 53 B.C.

Another factoid. Taking advantage of Rome’s weakness and confusion during its Civil War, the Parthians seized Jerusalem in 40 B.C. and held it for a year. So when it recently occurred to me that Zoroasterian ritual and the sacrificial rites taking place in the Jewish Temple resembled each other in at least one important aspect (the use of a perpetual fire) and that neither religion permitted the burial of human remains, it encouraged my growing suspicion that serious connections existed between Judaism and the fire-worshippers.

If I add that the Xin Dynasty’s brief rule was augered by heavenly signs (and included the brief abolition of slavery and the institution of land reform) and that political instability in Parthia may have been caused, at least in part, by cultural and religious divisions, it seems that the Silk Road was serving as a kind of telegraph wire, transmitting revolutionary signals across the length of Asia.

And in the middle of this, the Parthian magi (or fire-priests) received word that Herod the Great had died. Who would succeed him? Would trade be interrupted? Wouldn’t it make sense to curry favor with the new king?

And then a star rose. So they set out.

Within a couple of decades, all three empires reestablished political stability, and trade along the Silk Road returned to normal. But things were changing, and rebellion spiritual and intellectual simmered…

RT

The Nativity

"Angels Appearing to Shepherds"; Rembrandt; WikiCmns

 

Now that Thanksgiving is past and along with it the busiest shopping day of the year, it strikes me as the right moment to reflect a little on the Christmas story.

The story of Jesus’ birth has long been a sore point in the argument between faith and science. Miracles are happening all over the place; three (or is it two?) wise men (or are they fire priests of the Zoroastrian faith?) arrive unannounced and worship the newborn child; and King Herod is frightened enough by the prognostications to order the murder of every infant in Nazareth (a theme played out in many stories circulating at the time, not least the birth of Moses). Who can really believe that the accounts contained in the gospels are anything but invented (if beautiful) stories intended to win over the sympathies of the Jewish people?

On the other hand, there is a curious tenderness to these stories, a voice that appears no where else in the New Testament and which is marked by a concern with astrology characteristic of the ancient Semitic peoples.

& then there is the fact that one of the infancy gospels (an overlooked genre in its own right), the Arabic Infancy Gospel, was written in Aramaic (its title notwithstanding). Here we have one of the grails of modern scholarly research, an extant gospel written in Aramaic!

& then there is the even more remarkable fact that the AIG reports that Zoroaster himself predicted the birth of Jesus (and also adds other interesting details to the Nativity). By the way, just who was Zoroaster? Does anyone really know? That he was the founder of the religion that bears his name is agreed by all, but nothing much else: the date of his life and teaching and the substance of his instruction are uncertain.  Many of the writings attributed to him have disappeared.

But, as important as those questions are, let’s return to the birth. I’m going to propose, tentatively of course, that the materials belonging to the Nativity and Jesus’ childhood comprise a special category of writings, quite ancient and composed in Aramaic. And the reason that they were written (and told) in Aramaic is that they were intended for an audience that had little contact with the outside world & its sophisticated language, Greek: Jewish and Samaritan *women*.

There is a curious lack of men in these materials (especially if we overlook Joseph’s presence–he plays almost no role in the stories). The themes are of particular (one almost might say exclusive) interest to women: childbearing and the rearing of young children. And Jesus is introduced in the most appealing way possible: as an infant.

In short, the Nativity and other infancy materials constitute a Gospel for Women. That they contain a historical layer of fact gathered by and shared among women certainly seems plausible. And other considerations point to historical elements in the Christmas story. But more on that later.  RT

copyright, 2010, the Rag Tree

The Windhover

 

The Windhover

 To Christ our Lord

 I CAUGHT this morning morning’s minion, king-

    dom of daylight’s dauphin, dapple-dawn-drawn Falcon, in his riding

    Of the rolling level underneath him steady air, and striding

High there, how he rung upon the rein of a wimpling wing

In his ecstasy! then off, off forth on swing,                                                      5

    As a skate’s heel sweeps smooth on a bow-bend: the hurl and gliding

  Rebuffed the big wind. My heart in hiding

Stirred for a bird,—the achieve of; the mastery of the thing!

 

Brute beauty and valour and act, oh, air, pride, plume, here

    Buckle! AND the fire that breaks from thee then, a billion                     10

Times told lovelier, more dangerous, O my chevalier!

 

    No wonder of it: shéer plód makes plough down sillion

Shine, and blue-bleak embers, ah my dear,

    Fall, gall themselves, and gash gold-vermillion.

                                                                                         —Gerard Manley Hopkins

 

Extraordinary Jesus

I’m becoming more and more puzzled by recent depictions of Jesus as a peasant. Not to say that Jesus did not grow up among peasants; this seems likely. But to suggest that his achievements were based in charisma and verbal facility seems to fall short of the mark.

There is in the first place the incontrovertible fact that Jesus started a major world religion, the contributions of Paul and others notwithstanding. In fact, one could argue that Jesus founded “two* religions: Christianity and Gnosticism. The many gospels and ancient interpretations that have come down to us, however fragmentary some of them might be, suggest a complex and subtle mind that could easily be mis or partially read.

And then there are the many sayings, whether sanctioned or not, that echo and expand the admittedly complex four gospels: “I am the day” comes to mind. Or, expanding only slightly on Paul, “The Kingdom of God comes like a thief in the night.” Did Jesus purposely adapt the image of the sun (the ancient Semitic god of justice) to his own message? And how could he then claim that the Kingdom can inflict one of the most frightening experiences of the night? Not irreconcilable, just suggestive, and beautiful.

I also have issues with the claim that Jesus was illiterate. It presupposes that no boy has ever learned how to read on his own. It seems more likely to me, given Jesus’ extraordinary flexibility of thought, that he was bi, if not multi, lingual: Aramaic, Greek, Coptic, and Latin. And of course he could write, doubtless using more than one alphabet. A child prodigy, even.

All of this suggests gifted parents…from the upper classes, Mary exiled in rural Galilee, and the human father, who could he have been? King, patrician, magus? I suppose that the details aren’t important; what matters is the weight of the evidence.   RT

seek, find, trouble, wonder, rule, rest

they will never cut down all the trees in russia

I don’t see the sequence in my title

mentioned too often; what I usually come across is “seek & find.” It’s interesting that Jesus didn’t think that the finding was the hard part; the truth is all around us, if we stop and look at it. What’s hard is the expansion outward from the truth, the learning to live with it.

It seems that the truth is hard, painful, that we despair or run away from it, that somehow it’s not quite human. and what might that truth be? that possessions, including our bodies, are temporary, and that we mistake them for ourselves. the truth is, we die.

& yet somehow, we can’t believe it until we’re right in the middle of it: “I thought this might be it,” a friend said to me about being rushed into an operating room one day. He lived, but I don’t think he is unaware of the expiration date on his goods any longer.

& that is when we get to the wonder part. we see what’s really around us & come into contact with the goodness in other people, the beauty of the world. we lose our attachments to anything that drags us down, that isn’t part of what we are and are meant to do. Perhaps this is the most dangerous moment in the journey, for there is still work to do, the ruling of ourselves and whatever we know we have to finish in the allotted time. So why didn’t you ever finish your novel, detailing the car, making up with your family & friends, going to bermuda for a couple of days?

& by the way, you aren’t hungry are you? why are you still hungry? when you’ve dealt with the inner wolf, you can get some sleep.

that’s all for now, folks.