A prophet without honor in his own country

The New York Times religion columnist Ross Douthat accurately predicted the outcome of the 2024 US presidential election. 

The commenters on election day, for the most part, weren't having it, notably the ones who thought it was invalid simply because it hadn't changed over time even though the Democrat candidate did.

Some people just don't get it that the more things change, the more they stay the same.

 

The true king does much with little

 This small inheritance 

Contenteth me, and's worth a monarchy.

Sufficeth that I have maintains my state
And sends the poor well pleased from my gate.

-- William Shakespeare, Henry VI, part 2, Act 4, Scene 10

. . . and the two fishes divided he among them all. 

 

-- Mark 6:41

The Spirit threw Jesus out into the desert to be tempted of the devil just like Jesus threw devils out of people, according to St. Mark

The unfortunate association was cleaned up by Matthew and by Luke, who "cast out" the offending term in relation to the Spirit in favor of "non-compulsive" language more appropriate to the "holy" Spirit of developed Christian theology, who "leads" rather than drives (Matthew 4:1; Luke 4:1). John's Gospel knows nothing at all of this incident, but does preserve the appropriate idea of "casting out" evil in John 12:31 (of the prince of this world).

And immediately the Spirit driveth him into the wilderness. -- Mark 1:12

(Καὶ εὐθὺς τὸ πνεῦμα αὐτὸν ἐκβάλλει εἰς τὴν ἔρημον)

 

ἐκβάλλω "I cast out" with reference to devils is all over the place in the Synoptics. Here are just some of the examples from Mark, a primitive gospel replete with raw, vivid language:

 

 

Judas had the bag: How poor were Jesus and the Twelve?

 

 

 The Fourth Gospel is the only evidence we have that Jesus and the Twelve had a common kitty.

This "bag" was presumably the equivalent of the small box such as might store and protect the reeds/mouthpieces used by musicians in their wind instruments.

This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein.

 

-- John 12:6

For some of them thought, because Judas had the bag, that Jesus had said unto him, Buy those things that we have need of against the feast; or, that he should give something to the poor.

 

-- John 13:29

Otherwise in the Synoptics we have references to the personal belt, which was hollow and could store money (Mt. 10:9, Mk. 6:8), personal money bags for coins (Lk. 10:4, 12:33ff.) and provision sacks in which to carry a variety of travel supplies, generally understood, analogous to backpacks or saddlebags (Mt. 10:10, Mk. 6:8, Lk. 9:3, 10:4, 22:35f.). All these feature in Jesus' missionary instructions to his disciples where we learn that they are to carry no money and no supplies whatsoever. This is in keeping generally with the call to discipleship in the first place, to say goodbye to one's possessions (Luke 14:33) and follow Jesus.

Presumably, however, Jesus and the Twelve, being thus poor and preaching poverty, were recipients of charity, and it had to be someone's job to thus be the banker. But such money as there was can't have gone very far and did not amount to very much.

The story of the miraculous feeding of the 5,000 provides a ceiling limit for what Jesus and the Twelve might have imagined to be a lot of money. In it the disciples express incredulity at Jesus' expectation that they come up with the cash to feed so many, knowing as he must have that coming up with such a sum was pure fantasy.

He answered and said unto them, Give ye them to eat. And they say unto him, Shall we go and buy two hundred pennyworth of bread, and give them to eat?

 

-- Mark 6:37

The penny here is the denarius, in Matthew 20 famously considered fair pay for a full day's labor or for even much less than a day's labor, which seems rather over generous (see below).

The parallel in John 6:7 indicates that 200 denarii would allow 5,000 to eat only a little and not be satisfied:

Philip answered him, Two hundred pennyworth of bread is not sufficient for them, that every one of them may take a little.

It should be stated that not even a Roman soldier would have this kind of walking around money.

At the time of Jesus, a Roman legionary received base pay of about 0.6 denarius per day (10 asses), from which the soldier had to provide for his own arms and food. That's 224 denarii per year, from the time of Julius Caesar. So try to imagine that sum in the bag Judas had, and it is not at all credible.

A soldier received other intermittent pay, boosting the base pay on average to as much as 1 denarius a day, and of course out on the perimeters of the Empire he had a reputation for intimidating the locals for additional gain, which would make sense in Palestine given the poor agricultural conditions which drove up the price of daily bread.

And the soldiers likewise demanded of him [John the Baptist], saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.

 

-- Luke 3:14

Content with your wages.

 

Theoretically, the cost of a one pound to one and half pound loaf of bread at this time could be as high as 2 asses or as little as 1, but double this on the poor soil of Palestine. So 200 denarii would feed at the outside 1,600, or as few as 800, with say 1,400 calories each. The conundrum with even 200 denarii means the 5,000 would have to get by on 224 to 448 calories each. While the problem in the story sounds about correctly imagined, the prospect of the availability for purchase of such a great quantity of bread as well as of solving the logistical and distributional problems implied seems as utterly fanciful as the notion that they might have had the means to purchase so much bread in the first place.     

On the other end of the scale it makes sense that the bag which Judas had could often be quite empty, necessitating scrounging operations on the part of Jesus and the Twelve themselves just to survive.

At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat.

 

-- Matthew 12:1

And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn.

 

-- Mark 2:23

And it came to pass on the second sabbath after the first, that he went through the corn fields; and his disciples plucked the ears of corn, and did eat, rubbing them in their hands.

 

-- Luke 6:1

The needs of Jesus and the Twelve at a minimum subsistence level of 1,400 calories daily would mean in the hardest of times requiring as much as 3.25 denarii a day (4 asses for one loaf of bread X 13 = 52 / 16). Charity must have played an outsized role in the ministry of Jesus and his disciples.

Hence the centrality of daily bread to the Lord's Prayer, and the fame and survival of the bread sayings generally throughout the Gospels.

Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?

 

-- Matthew 6:25

Why Jesus was a prophet without honor in his own home

And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house. -- Matthew 13:57 (Mark 6:4)

Imagine Jesus the bastard child of Mary taken in by the carpenter as his own son. The carpenter Joseph raises Jesus as his own and presumably trains him to be a carpenter also. Joseph disappears from the record, probably due to early death, so that we never hear of him again in the Gospels in the active sense, beyond the time when Jesus at the age of twelve tarried in the temple according to Luke. Thus Jesus no doubt became the man of the family and its material provider from that point on, which would explain in part why the spiritually precocious child had to wait so long to begin his public ministry as a teacher with pupils. He had a personal obligation of support for his family, which also included training his younger brothers in the trade to take over for him when the time was right.

Jesus turned his back on all this, that is, he repented of his former life, when he left them all and submitted to the baptism of repentance, the baptism of John. In doing so Jesus was demonstrating that he himself was willing to pay the price of discipleship, personal poverty, which he demanded his followers to pay also. "No man can be my disciple who does not say goodbye to everything that he owns."

We can well imagine how this went over with his own family, which found it difficult to accept even if it never caused them to shun him as he now seemed to shun them. The famous scene in Mark 3 where Jesus fails to recognize them as his true mother, sisters and brothers no doubt was confirmation to them that he was indeed "beside himself". You can almost hear some of them saying, "Brother Jesus has gone off the deep end and started a cult!"

But to others from Jesus' hometown not simply the failure to meet his social obligations but his rejection of those obligations in principle was a scandal causing them to be indignant at him, despite his reputation for "success" as a prophet and wonder worker, and now they felt alienated from him. "What if everyone did what he did? How would anyone survive? Those unwilling to work will not get to eat! If any one does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his own family, he has disowned the faith and is worse than an unbeliever!"

Contra Mark Tooley And Michael Novak, Jesus Wasn't Interested In Alleviating Poverty, Funding Charity And Sustaining Liberty

Mark Tooley, here:

Creating new businesses is a Christian moral imperative, recalling the Savior was Himself a small businessman, and knowing that only business can meaningfully alleviate poverty, fund charity, and sustain liberty. Why aren’t more Christians speaking of business and economic expansion as central to true social justice???

This claim that Jesus was a small businessman stands on the strength of Mark 6:3 alone in the New Testament:

"Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren’t his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.

But of course Matthew has corrected this narrative at 13:55 of his own gospel:

“Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?"

Apart from the fact that I rather doubt that Michael Novak would find a happy audience among his fellow Catholics if he similarly pressed these passages to insist Jesus' brothers and sisters were the progeny of the ever virgin Mary, to insist that Jesus was a small businessman is to miss completely from the gospels his vocation as eschatological prophet and his message of repentance, which required "saying goodbye to everything that one has" according to Luke 14:33. Fisherman are called to drop their nets and follow, in other words leave their jobs behind and become completely dependent on God in order to escape the wrath that is to come. The same for everyone else, rich and poor alike, from miserable tax farmers to princes in soft raiment. All are required to give up their former pursuits and come follow, bringing nothing to the table. Indeed, the more you've got, the more it is likely to hold you back.

Jesus' message is not about alleviating poverty. It's about increasing it. The meaning of Jesus' gospel is to become the poor.

Yes, distribution to others who are poor is required. You can call this funding charity if you wish, but Jesus expected the recipients to give it all away, too, and also come follow so that his movement would give and give and give without producing anything new until the eschaton of God's judgment intervened, which Jesus believed would happen imminently.

In other words, sustainability was the last thing on Jesus' mind.

Actually, liquidation of businesses is the moral imperative of the teaching of Jesus, not creating new businesses, because God's judgment is right around the corner. Well, if you said that today, they'd call you nuts, too.

If there is a stumbling block in the gospel it's this, not the cross of later invention.

To Whom Does A God Pray?

And when he had sent the multitudes away, he went up into a mountain apart to pray: and when the evening was come, he was there alone. (Mt.14:23)

Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put [his] hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them. (Mt.19:13)

Then cometh Jesus with them unto a place called Gethsemane, and saith unto the disciples, Sit ye here, while I go and pray yonder. (Mt.26:36)

And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou [wilt]. (Mt.26:39)

He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done. (Mt.26:42)

And he left them, and went away again, and prayed the third time, saying the same words. (Mt.26:44)

Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? (Mt.26:53)

And in the morning, rising up a great while before day, he went out, and departed into a solitary place, and there prayed. (Mk.1:35)

And when he had sent them away, he departed into a mountain to pray. (Mk.6:46)

And they came to a place which was named Gethsemane: and he saith to his disciples, Sit ye here, while I shall pray. (Mk.14:32)

And he went forward a little, and fell on the ground, and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him. (Mk.14:35)

And again he went away, and prayed, and spake the same words. (Mk.14:39)

Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened, (Lk.3:21)

And he withdrew himself into the wilderness, and prayed. (Lk.5:16)

And it came to pass in those days, that he went out into a mountain to pray, and continued all night in prayer to God. (Lk.6:12)

And it came to pass, as he was alone praying, his disciples were with him: and he asked them, saying, Whom say the people that I am? (Lk.9:18)

And it came to pass about an eight days after these sayings, he took Peter and John and James, and went up into a mountain to pray. And as he prayed, the fashion of his countenance was altered, and his raiment [was] white [and] glistering.(Lk.9:28f.)

And it came to pass, that, as he was praying in a certain place, when he ceased, one of his disciples said unto him, Lord, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples. (Lk.11:1)

But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren. (Lk.22:32)

And he was withdrawn from them about a stone's cast, and kneeled down, and prayed, (Lk:22:41)

And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground. And when he rose up from prayer, and was come to his disciples, he found them sleeping for sorrow, (Lk.22:44f.)

And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; (Jn.14:16)

At that day ye shall ask in my name: and I say not unto you, that I will pray the Father for you: (Jn.16:26)

I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine. (Jn.17:9)

I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil. (Jn.17:15)

Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; (Jn.17:20)

A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country

[P]hilosophers have no honour in their cities . . . their having honour would be far more extraordinary. ... [T]he best votaries of philosophy [are] useless to the rest of the world.

-- Socrates, Plato's Republic, Book 6

Pick Your Poison

Sunday's sermon was based on 2 Corinthians 12:1 ff., but what caught my attention was the Gospel appointed for the day, from Mark 6:1 ff., where Jesus sends out the disciples "by two and two," commanding them to take "nothing for their journey, save a staff only" and to "be shod with sandals."

The parallel in Matthew 10 contradicts these details, where Jesus says "provide . . . neither shoes, nor yet staves . . ." (vss.9-10), whereas Luke fails to mention the staves altogether, but agrees with Matthew about the footwear (10:4).

Neither Mark nor Luke represent the episode in the explicit eschatological terms which thoroughly infuse Matthew's parallel account. Indeed, Matthew transfers much of the eschatological imagery and language which Mark reserves for the yet somewhat distant time of his "little apocalypse" in Mark 13 into a much earlier period of the ministry of Jesus. In Matthew 10:23 Jesus says, "For verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come." This latter is the startling saying which so preoccupied the imagination of Albert Schweitzer's Quest of the Historical Jesus. As such these differences are a reminder of how the author of Matthew is at pains to correct the record of Mark. Luke also does this in his own way and at a later date, and openly states it as his aim in providing his own orderly and accurate account, the existence of other similar declarations of the gospel (presumably Mark and Matthew) notwithstanding (Luke 1:1 ff.). The Synoptics thus represent a stream of tradition worked and reworked because of perceived but unstated deficiencies, the fact of which underscores the importance of the work of redaction criticism and of the need to let the individual compositions speak for themselves and be understood on their own terms as much as is possible.

Every critic will have his favorite problem texts from the Bible. One of mine is from 2 Peter 2:6-8 where the reader is reminded about righteous Lot, who "vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds" in Sodom and Gomorrah. Jesus is made to recount this story of Lot's escape from God's judgment on those cities in Luke 17:28 ff. But neither author seems to be in the least bothered by the seamy conclusion of the story in Genesis 19 whereby "both the daughters of Lot" were "with child by their father" (vs. 36). Having lost their husbands (!) to the fire from heaven and being unable to find new ones in their mountain hideaway, they got their father senseless drunk (on successive evenings, at least) to get children by him without his knowledge. The apples don't fall far from the pillar of salt, so to speak. What a family.

And never mind the internal problems with the story in Genesis 19. Are the daughters virgins (vs. 8) even though they have husbands (vs. 14)? Or has some considerable but unstated period of time intervened? Lot at length finds himself in difficult straights, barricaded in his house, but does a righteous man offer to throw his own flesh and blood to a mob of rapists in the street to protect the messengers of God within? It's as if none of this is known, or matters, to the authors of 2 Peter and Luke.

Another wonder is the famous example from Titus 1:12 f., which approvingly quotes the ancient maxim "The Cretans are alway liars." If you need a proof text for stereotyping an ethnic group, there you have it. Some say such reputations were justly deserved, however politically incorrect it may be today to say so openly. But it is hard to imagine the Paul of the Epistle to the Romans saying such a thing: "If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men" (12:18).

Some problems are more serious than others, for example, the difficulty with identifying Cyrenius the governor of Syria from Luke 2:1 f. It bears repeating, however, that such problems are not unique to the Bible. Tacitus' understanding of the Jews in his Histories is riddled with mistakes, but we don't give up in despair of learning from him about matters nearer to Rome because of it. It should more often be considered that the weaknesses we discover on the page are more nearly a reflection of our own, and tell us more about the human condition than we care to admit, the theme of the sermon, had I been paying better attention.