I, like many of my generation, ceased studying the Bible after I left Methodist Sunday School. Consequently I've found that my understanding and knowledge of what is actually in the New Testament remained infantile in nature. Apart from once playing Jesus in the Dennis Potter play Son of Man, in the 1980's, I've not returned to the gospels etc for nigh on fifty plus years. Hence this blog post. I'm interested in how my perceptions and interpretations of it are now.
I have N T Wright's relatively recent translation of the New Testament, and settled on buying his accompanying commentaries to guide my progress through it. I'm not sure exactly how that will be reflected in this blog. Though, judging by my first foray, it's most likely to include impressions, insights, difficulties and sheer bafflement.
.jpg)
Matthew, the reformed Taxi Collector, structures his gospel with all the meticulousness one might expect of a seasoned accountant. Short punchy paragraphs with a strong narrative woven through them. It'll be interested to see whether there is a different feel to other gospels. Even if there is some overlap in content. The content here maybe Matthew's in origin, but compiled into a gospel at a later date, no one can truly say for sure who wrote it in its present form.
Initially this gospel recounts the early life of Jesus, it feels familiar. These are the stories I heard and read as a child, the shepherds, the magi, the parables etc. Its notable which particularly tricky paragraphs have been left out of the version presented to the under twelves.
A lot of these earlier events are often written to foreshadow the later ministry and crucifixion. If not that, then its to uphold any claim Jesus makes to being either God's Son, or the Messiah. Though I'm not confident you can always conflate those two conceptions. So, Yes, there is frequent foreshadowing in Matthew, plus the obligatory prophecy being fulfilled from the Old Testament. It appears to be a given that these prophecies never fulfill themselves in quite the way people expect, and Jesus is forever having to retrospectively point this out. So what is the point of them then? Doesn't that make them, as prophecies, rather unreliable, redundant even? I find I am greatly irritated by the Old Testament being wheeled out to provide Jesus with authority all the time.
So 'the prophetic streak' in the New Testament is getting on my tits quite a bit. The Old Testament as I read it seems to arise out of an entirely different view of what the Godhead is like, to the one Jesus talks of. Lots of vengefulness and retributive punishment. It is the interventionist view of God at its very cruelest - Do as I say, or I'll get extremely cross and throw things about. I don't buy into the whole concept of an interventionist God. It creates so many inconsistencies that they eventually rob it of any credibility. Any conception with that many gaping holes in it, cannot be left standing as correct surely?
Whether one believes in the miracles or not, you have to hand it to Jesus they are a great way to promote and get yourself noticed. They certainly pulled in the crowds to hear his message. That's a bit cynical I know, sorry! But I've seen far too many American evangelists 'performing miracles' to not see it as anything other than emotionally manipulative. Looked at another way, I wonder how literal one can be in interpreting the miraculous events. There role could be more symbolic. So, yeah, I have difficulty taking the recounting of miracles as actual events. If you do see them as living miracles, you have to then see Jesus as a really special person, or a very skilled magician, or a false prophet in league with Satan, not God. So far, let's say, I'm a bit suspicious of them all.
But then I encounter chapters like when Jesus sending out his disciples to spread his message. Having trained them in how to heal, and what to do and not do, where to go and not go, what to say and not to say. Basically giving them advice on how to handle ministry, how to deal with opposition and speaking in public. This struck me quite powerfully as a very real sounding account of an actual event. If it all goes down badly guys, just do a runner. I now understand why Christianity is so keen on proselytising, Jesus encouraged it first.
He sent them out literally to be his proxies. It's not recounted in Matthew's gospel, how he trained them in healing, raising the dead etc. How that was conveyed and accomplished is left unwritten. Though when they fall short in their mission, he makes it clear its down to their lack of faith in him. Jesus personality comes across as being a whole lot sterner and uncompromising, not to mention wilder, anarchic and unconventional than any 'meek and mild' version that was painted to us as children.Though I guess you wouldn't want to scare the poor dears rigid at the age of six.
There is a vein running through Matthew's gospel of 'end of times', an apocalyptic urgency to get on and do this now, before it all goes to shit, that echoes some of our own present day zeitgeist. Undoubtedly Israel at the time being under Roman occupation and hence unfree, had led to many futile rebellions and figures claiming to be the longed for liberating Messiah. Jesus was just one more. So its probably unsurprising there are no corroborating accounts from the time, other than the New Testament itself, of Jesus's ministry and crucifixion. You have to go a hundred years after the time of Christ to Tacitus, who gives some withering confirmation of the facts surrounding Jesus's death from a Roman perspective.
The details of the period, places and people, Roman leadership etc do all tally. And its also clear that Jesus's ministry initially stayed below the Roman radar. His focus was primarily on speaking to, and meeting, the needs of the home crowd. And his entire ministry from start to finish was barely three years long. Why would anyone else take note of it? So far as the Romans were concerned Jesus was a pain, but also an insignificant flash in the pan, quickly dealt with.
The opposition baddies, The Pharisees, constantly try to wrong foot Jesus. Questioning why he allowed his disciples to disobey Jewish practice, or why Jesus performed acts of healing on the Sabbath. I always thought The Pharisees were the Temple Elders, but no, they are just an ultra traditional rival evangelical group, very religious hardliners, who supported the military overthrow of the Roman backed leadership. In many ways The Pharisees are the Christian equivalent of The Brahmins in Buddhist discourses, who always come off the worst in any conversation with the Buddha. The Pharisees are the po-faced stooges that Jesus's teaching shows up.
Jesus was apparently adept at expanding a few loaves and fishes to feed thousands. Which is a very good way to do improvised catering when more turn up than you expect to an event. Its such an odd thing to be miraculous over, making food go further. Though you can bet there was an Old Testament prophecy somewhere being fulfilled - And low they will verily stuff themselves with his bounty.
NEXT TIME
Gospel of Matthew - Part Two.
No comments:
Post a Comment