An Atheist Explores the Bible Part 198: In which Jesus, Peter, James and John go looking for men ;) (Luke 1-5)

Luke 1-5
In which Jesus, Peter, James and John go looking for men ;).

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:

Luke 1

“There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.”

First impressions of Luke is that he’s a wordier writer than Matthew, and especially Mark, but that’s not a bad thing. The opening preamble to this chapter is couched as a direct address to someone called Theophilus although, since this essentially translates as “One Who Loves God” perhaps it is not a specific person but A. N. Other Believer. It’s interesting that Luke mentions earlier writings as “which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word”, and his gospel is an attempt to set things down in order.

Luke goes into a lot more depth of the prelude the birth of Jesus, starting with the old childless couple of Zacharias (a priest who looks after the incense) and his wife Elisabeth. The angel Gabriel appears (and I think this is the first time that name is mentioned) to Zacharias and tells him that they will have a child; Zacharias is struck dumb for not believing and only gets his speech back once the son is born and is named John (because Gabriel told them to call him this, and in contravention of family tradition). So, I assume this is going to be John the Baptist given that Zachariah prophesies that John “shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways”. Note the complete rip-off of Abram and Sarai here as well.

Meanwhile, five months into Elisabeth’s pregnancy, Gabriel visits Mary and tells her that she will bear the Son of God. There is a suggestion that Elisabeth is Mary’s cousin, although it’s not clear if this is a familial relationship or merely a term expressing closeness (perhaps “cousins” in both having God-granted pregnancies). However, they know each other because Mary goes to stay with Elizabeth for a while, and Elizabeth’s unborn child “leaped in her womb” at the presence of the unborn Jesus. So this is new, an implication at a much earlier connection between John the Baptist and Jesus, which makes John an even more enigmatic figure than before; not only is he the “almost-Messiah”, but he and Jesus shared ante-natal classes.

The chapter ends with the birth of John and Zachariah’s prophecies for his life; at this stage Jesus is not yet born (it's like the Life and Times of Tristram Shandy).

Luke 2

“And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.”

Some more familiar elements of the nativity appear here, including the phrases that any child who has ever taken part in a primary school nativity play will know – “swaddling clothes”, “manger”, “no room at the inn”. The angel (not identified as Gabriel) appears to the shepherds and they go to meet the infant Jesus. No wise men/kings in this gospel.

Afterwards there are scenes from the life of the young Jesus. He is taken to the temple to be circumcised, where He is hailed by Simeon, and man who has had a prophecy of meeting the Christ, and an old prophetess called Anna, both of whom offer worship. Next the chapter jumps to a twelve year old Jesus who goes missing during another family trip to Jerusalem. Eventually Joseph and Mary find Him sat in the temple discussing scripture with the priests. I remember from the previous two gospels wondering if Jesus’ scriptural knowledge is supposed to be preternatural or merely that He is unusually fixated on religious matters for a carpenter’s son. The precocious Jesus presented here suggests that it’s more a result of having God for a father that supernaturally grants Him knowledge, which I find a bit disappointing, to be honest. Sure it marks Jesus out as being notably different, but I prefer the idea that He came up with His thoughts through His own efforts.

Luke 3

“As it is written in the book of the words of Esaias the prophet, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.”

Luke is a very thorough scholar in terms of his attempting to very specifically anchor events in time; this chapter opens with “Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene”, which should make it possible to give an exact date to the events described therein (about 29 AD, depending on exactly how regnal years of Roman emperors is reckoned). Luke also mentions that Jesus at this time as about thirty, which would track (presumably this chapter was used as the basis for setting up the AD dating system in the first place).

John the Baptist begins baptising people and being the “voice in the wilderness”, and people wonder if he’s the Messiah; John’s response is that he baptises with water, but there’s one to come who will “baptise you with the Holy Ghost”. However, John the Baptist falls afoul of Herodias and is imprisoned by Herod. It’s mentioned after this that Jesus is baptised, not specifically stated as by John but I think we can assume that this is implied, and then there is a lengthy genealogy of Jesus, from Joseph back to Adam. Two things to note here – one is what I’ve discussed before, that the lineage to David is spurious if Jesus isn’t *actually* the son of Joseph, but also this chapter traces His lineage right back to God, with Adam as the first “Son of God”, by which argument that means that *all* humans are effectively descendants of God.

Luke 4

“And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness”

Some by-now familiar scenes in the life of Jesus are described in this chapter; first Jesus spends forty days in the wilderness where the devil tempts Him with food and power, and tries to force Him to perform miracles, all to no avail. When Jesus returns He goes to the synagogue where He gives a very meaningful reading of Isaiah wherein He strongly implies that He is the fulfilment of prophecy, but then goes on to say that He can’t help the people of Nazareth (because “no prophet is accepted in his own country”) and so they throw Him out in anger. Can’t really blame them, it comes across as a bit of a smartarse move. Jesus then goes on to heal Simon’s sick mother and a couple of men possessed by demons – one uses the expression “let us alone”, so possibly this is Legion. Interesting that it is the demons that name Jesus as the Christ as they recognise His power, for which He tells them to be quiet about it.

Luke 5

“And Simon answering said unto him, Master, we have toiled all the night, and have taken nothing: nevertheless at thy word I will let down the net.”

Here we get a variant on Jesus calling Simon, James and John the fishermen to His cause. First, Jesus preaches a sermon from the boat, as He seems wont to do, and then a bit later on bids the fishermen to let down their nets. They’re doubtful but do it anyway, to be rewarded with a plentiful catch. A little parable about faith giving great rewards, perhaps? The phrase uttered here, “Fear not; from henceforth thou shalt catch men”, is not as good as “come with me and be fishers of men”, I think. It sounds more like cruising gay bars. The publican Levi is also brought to Jesus’ cause, and the Pharisees berate Him for consorting with lowlife (for which “They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick”), as we’ve read before. Also the man with palsy whom Jesus forgives, to the annoyance of the Pharisees – it’s easier to forgive than to make a man with palsy walk, so I’ll do that as well just to show you up.

And finally another interlude between Jesus and the Pharisees makes more sense here – when they complain about the disciples eating when they should be fasting, Jesus responds with some flannel about new wine in old bottles and patching up old garments. I get it now, I think. Jesus is basically saying that their time is over, in a roundabout fashion. You can’t add new stuff to old things, you need to start with *everything* new, so a new way of religion can’t be taught to priests of the old order. At least, that’s how I read that now. Sneaky Jesus, He’s telling the Pharisees that they’re out of touch and old-fashioned without coming right out and stating that.