My blog

[TimOneill]

Do you have sources for these extra points?

1. Nazareth - Christopher Hitchens was not inclined to believe much about Christianity. But he did believe it was most likely that a historical Jesus existed. And the thing that convinced him of this were the nativity stories in gLuke and gMatt. That's because both of these stories fall over themselves to find a way to "explain" how the Messiah came to be born in Bethlehem (where he was supposed to be born according to Micah 5:2) and yet was a Galilean from the tiny village of Nazareth. Not only do they go to elaborate lengths to explain how this could be, but they actually tell two totally different and completely contradictory and mutually exclusive stories.

In gLuke we get told his parents lived in Nazareth, just happened to be in Bethlehem when Jesus was born because of the census of P. Sulplicius Quirinius, and then returned to Nazareth. Except in gMatt they are depicted living in Bethlehem to start with and have to flee persecution by Herod and then settle in Nazareth later. Not only are both these stories fraught with problems in themselves, they are set ten years apart. Herod died in 4 BC and Quirnius' census was in 6 AD. So they can't both be true.

The fact is that they are both most likely untrue and are two different ways that developed to deal with the awkward fact that Jesus was from the wrong town in the wrong part of Palestine. John 7:41-42 even depicts some Jews making precisely this objection to the idea that he was the Messiah.

If Jesus existed and was from Nazareth in Galilee, all this makes sense. But if he didn't exist or didn't come from Nazareth and/or Galilee, it's very weird that the gospel writers (or their sources) are going to such trouble to fit Nazareth into their stories, while still trying to shoehorn Jesus into their Messianic expectations.

In the late second century Sextus Julius Africanus wrote about the descendants of Jesus' family:

"Among these are those already mentioned, called Desposyni, on account of their connection with the family of the Saviour. Coming from Nazara and Cochaba, villages of the Jews, into other parts of the world, they drew the aforesaid genealogy from memory and from the book of daily records as faithfully as possible. Whether then the case stand thus or not no one could find a clearer explanation, according to my own opinion and that of every candid person. And let this suffice us, for, although we can urge no testimony in its support, we have nothing better or truer to offer."

2. The Baptism by John - This is something else that the gospel writers found awkward and which they had to deal with in different ways. It was not awkward for the writer of gMark, because he depicts the Baptist as an Elisha figure and the baptism as the moment Jesus became the Messiah. The idea that the Messiah would not realise who he was until anointed by Elisha was a common one at the time. But the writers of gLuke and gMatt have Jesus as Messiah from his conception and gJohn has him as Messiah from the dawn of time. So their Messiah submitting to baptism by his inferior was a problem.

The writer of gLuke deals with this by adding an element not found in any other gospel - the idea that Jesus and John were cousins and that John acknowledged Jesus' superiority while both were still in the womb. gMatt deals with it by inserting a piece of dialogue not found in the source, gMark, where the Baptist objects to baptising his superior and Jesus reassures him. And the author/s of gJohn deal with it by removing it from the story altogether. In that version the Baptist declares Jesus to be the Messiah to the crowd while baptising others, but doesn't actually baptise Jesus at all.

The key point here is that the encounter between Jesus and John the Baptist is one of the very few stories found in all four gospels. It was clearly an important and very old part of the tradition and in three of the four gospels it marks the beginning of Jesus' career. It was obviously important enough that none of the gospel writers felt they could leave it out, but three of them had some trouble trying to make it fit with their version of who and what Jesus was.

3. Apocalyptic Message - The Baptist continues to be an odd element in the story in various other places in the gospels. Both gMark and gMatt make a point of noting that Jesus did not begin preaching until after John had been arrested by Herod Antipas - implying that he saw himself as a successor to John. Then we get the story of the imprisoned John sending messengers to ask who he is - a strange element in the story if John had apparently already hailed Jesus as the Messiah earlier. And after John is executed we have several references to people thinking Jesus was actually John risen from the dead - again indicating that he was seen as someone preaching the same message and something of a successor to John.

John is depicted as preaching an apocalyptic message about the coming end times and after his arrest Jesus is depicted preaching the same message of the coming of an apocalyptic "kingship of God", judgement for sinners and a renewal of the earth. This message is strongest and clearest in gMark and gMatt but is starting to be tempered somewhat in gLuke. By the time we get to gJohn it's virtually disappeared and has been replaced by a new message about faith in Jesus as a redeeming saviour. But in Paul's epistles, which are older than any of the gospels, we also find the same message about the coming apocalypse.

This seems to be because it is the earliest form of Christian belief and that, when the apocalypse failed to happen and in the wake of the upheavals of the Jewish Revolt, Christianity began to evolve away from being an apocalyptic Jewish sect and began to become more like a gentile saviour cult. But the Jewish roots it drifted from were clearly apocalyptic and this seems to go back to Jesus himself and before him to his predecessor John the Baptist.