An Atheist Explores the Bible Part 189: The New Testament Begins. Plus: Uncle Ben Parker and Monty Python (Matthew 1-5)

Matthew 1-5
The New Testament Begins. Plus: Uncle Ben Parker and Monty Python.

Welcome to another instalment of An Atheist Explores Sacred Texts (Bible version).

In this series I work my way chapter-by-chapter through the King James Bible, commenting on it from the point of view of the text as literature and mythology.

For more detail, see the introductory post http://bit.ly/2F8f9JT

For the online KJV I use, see here http://bit.ly/2m0zVUP

And now:

Matthew 1

“The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham”

The New Testament begins in a familiar fashion for those of us who have worked our way through the Old Testament – with a good old genealogy. This, obviously, is to set out the heritage of Jesus in order to “prove” that He fulfils certain prophecies. There are a few things that struck me.

First, thankfully Matthew begins with Abraham. Anything between Adam and Noah is redundant, and if a person is going to have Jewish heritage then according to biblical tradition of course you ave to start with Abraham. So there’s that. The second is the spelling variance with the OT, most notable in that a lot of OT names that ended with an “h” are here rendered with an “s” – Ekekiah becomes Ekekias, Josiah becomes Josias and so on. Zadok becomes Sadoc, Rehoboam becomes Roboam, and there are others as well. Although you can get the sense of who is who, and whilst each testament may have originally been written in a different language, why the translators didn’t take the opportunity to standardise spelling, I don’t know. This wouldn’t be “changing the word of God” in any significant sense, and would greatly reduce confusion.

Also of note is the observation of fourteen generations between Abraham and David, David to the Exile, and the Exile until Jesus. I haven’t seen any other reference to fourteen as being a significant number, so perhaps Matthew just likes symmetry.

The second part of this chapter deals with Mary’s pregnancy, as seen mainly from Joseph’s point of view. Initially he is going to hide her away when she’s found to be with a child that isn’t his – this is the nicer option than simply divorcing her. However, Joseph is visited by an angel in his dreams that tells him of the prophesied virgin birth of the “Emmanual”, and so Joseph is won over. Interesting that here it is Joseph getting the angelic visitation, we are told almost second-hand that Mary is pregnant by “the Holy Spirit”.

One thing about this that I will address now – surely that entire genealogy is pointless is Jesus is not actually Joseph’s son? If He’s directly conceived by God, He only belongs in that genealogy as a kind of step-child, and I’ve no idea what his legal status would be. If you’re going to make a thing out of bloodlines, however, it ... doesn’t quite work in this case.

Matthew 2

“Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,”

The nativity story is something that “everyone knows”, at least anyone raised in a nominally Christian country, since we’ve all been a shepherd (boys) or an angel (girls) in the school nativity play. But it’s interesting that the story is cobbled from bits in each of the first three gospels. In Matthew we have the three “wise men” (not kings) from the East, who unwittingly initiate a genocide by visiting Herod first and telling him that they’ve come to see the new King of the Jews.

Then they follow a star to the stable in Bethlehem and present their gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh. I’ve come across some interesting possible symbolism of these unusual baby gifts – gold for kingship, frankincense for priesthood, myrrh for embalming the dead, all hinting at Jesus’ future.

The wise men, being wise, and informed by an angelic dream, decide not to go back to Herod, but Herod then takes the extreme measure of killing every boy under two years old in Bethlehem. However, Joseph, forewarned by another angelic dream, takes the family to Egypt where they stay until Herod is dead. Even then Joseph fears Herod’s son Archelaus, and goes to Nazareth.

There are a lot of prophecies referred to here. That an important ruler will be born in Bethlehem – “And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel”, also neatly reconciled with “Out of Egypt have I called my son” and “He shall be called a Nazarene”. Although I must admit, I thought Nazarene was another term for a Nazarite, one of those extreme ascetics. We also get a mention of Jeremiah (or as he’s called here, Jeremy)’s famous “Rachel weeping for her children” quote, here used to refer to the massacre of the innocents. I think I’ve said before, but there are plenty of historical occurrences of horrible things happening to the Jews that you could apply this to.

Matthew 3

“In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea”

Wow, Matthew really rattles through the early life of Jesus. Here we have John the Baptist, telling people to “prepare the way for the Lord”, with a reference to the prophecies of Isaiah stuck in for good measure. John the Baptist, a strange wild holy man with his camel hair coat and his diet of locusts and honey, baptising people from all over the country, is an intriguing biblical figure. He’s not so keen on the Pharisees and Sadducees, calling them a nest of vipers. He does, however, baptise them all the same. With no context we’re left wondering who these people are, although it seems, even without knowing otherwise, that they are some kind of religious figures that represent the establishment. Presumably it would have been obvious to the original readers.

Then Jesus turns up, and John demurs that it should be Jesus baptising him, not the other way around; evidently John recognises something in the young man as at this point Jesus has done nothing special. But once Jesus is baptised He has a moment of revelation, and sees the holy spirit “descending like a dove” (and so setting the symbological format for religious art for centuries to come) and voice proclaiming “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased”.

One feels that John has quite an effect on the young Jesus, and the sense here is of a powerful religious awakening. I could quibble about the meaning of “Son” as actually being an offspring as opposed to a metaphorical son, an earthly inheritor, so to speak, but that argument kept the Byzantine Empire occupied for centuries, so I won’t be saying anything new!

Oh, the online version of the KJV that I use has chosen to highlight any speech directly attributed to Jesus in red, which is a useful touch. In this chapter we first see Him speak, where he basically tells John that it’s okay to do the baptism – “it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness”, in other words it’s a good thing to do the right thing.

Matthew 4

“Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.”

Once again Matthew rattles along through the life of Jesus. This chapter starts with the forty days in the wilderness, during which time “the devil” attempts to provoke Jesus into performing miracles for ultimately selfish ends – creating food, testing God by throwing Himself of a cliff to see if angels will catch Him, and turning to the devil in order to gain temporal power. Each time Jesus rebuffs the devil, whom He refers to as Satan. Again we get some direct quotes from Jesus that essentially reflect the more pious aspects of OT law – worship only God, don’t tempt God and the famous “man cannot live on bread alone” – the word of God is required also for a full life. This could be expanded to a more secular way of thinking, in that in order for person to enjoy a full life the spiritual or artistic aspects must be considered as well.

This is the first time that “the devil” has been mentioned in the bible, although Satan (as the trickster and tempter figure) has cropped up before. In some ways this can be read as Jesus wrestling with His own thoughts. Following His baptism He’s evidently bought into this idea that he is some kind of supernatural figure, but here He’s trying to sort out what He’s going to do with this – He needs Uncle Ben Parker to tell Him that with great power comes great responsibility.

And once Jesus has worked things out, the rest of the chapter describes His early ministry, preaching in Capernaum. The text implies that this is a reaction to the arrest of John the Baptist, but not what kind of reaction. Is Jesus going somewhere else to avoid the same fate, or is He going to the same area to take over what John started? Maybe other gospels will shed some light on this. Jesus preaches “Repent; for the kingdom of heaven is at hand”, and here the first disciples are recruited. Simon Peter and his brother Andrew, James and his brother John, and possibly their father Zebedee, all fishermen on the Sea of Galilee. Jesus travels the synagogues of Galilee, healing the sick, and His fame spreads.

Matthew 5

“Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”

Matthew 5 is basically the Sermon on the Mount. Seeing that people are interested in what He has to say, Jesus goes up a mountain (unnamed) so that He can address them all. It’s difficult to read this chapter without Monty Python intruding thoughts of cheesemakers, but this, surely must the original core of Christian beliefs. And in that respect it bears unpacking a bit.

The sermon starts with the “blessed are the meek” section, with a good rhetorical device of repetition. The message to this part seems less to be “if you want to inherit the earth, be meek”, and more that the underdog will one day get their rewards, the sick will be healed, the hungry will be fed and so on. But also interlaced with this is an appeal to the peacemakers (or possibly manufacturers of all dairy goods…), so on the one hand it is an offer of comfort, but on the other it also sets out the kinds of people that are most beloved of God, in Jesus’ philosophy.

Jesus then goes on to say “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil”. His teachings are not a replacement for Mosaic law, but an addendum. He then goes on to expand on the commandments on a point-by-point basis. This is not so much Mosaic Law v2.0, more v1.5. It makes me wonder to what degree a carpenter’s son would be expected to be versed in scripture – is this something that all adult men in Judea ca. AD30 would know, or is Jesus’ scriptural learning set Him apart in some way? Was His awakening upon baptism tied with extensive prior study of scripture? Did He go away afterwards and study? Or is this some kind of supernatural inherited knowledge?

So “Thou shalt not kill” becomes not only that, but that it is wrong to come to temple to make sacrifice if there is contention between you and another – accord should be made first of all. Not only that, but Jesus puts aside the idea of “an eye for an eye” and replaces it with a kind of extreme pacifism – the famous “turn (actually "offer") the other cheek” of not only not seeking retribution but of almost actively accepting rebukes and attacks. And not only “love thy neighbour” but “love thine enemy” as well. Being friends with people with whom you have no quarrel is no great thing, but making friends with people with whom you do have a quarrel, that has greater repercussions for the good.

I’m not sure I can agree so much with Jesus’ take on adultery – that adultery (and, one assumes, avarice as well) in the mind is in effect the same as in action. This, perhaps, expects people to act a little too perfectly – I would argue that having a fleeting thought is nothing to particularly blame someone for; however holding onto the thought and/or acting upon it is another matter. I think this kind of thinking can cause a lot of unnecessary worry, but I can see how consciously striving to be better can work as a method for change.

A lot of well-known sayings come from this chapter. The ones mentioned above, as well as “if thine eye offends thee, pluck it out” (no, don’t! That’s extreme) and hiding one’s light under a bushel.