Jesus/John the Baptist/baptism

Recall the standard academic view of the gospels:

• Mark was written first
• Matthew and Luke wrote their gospels with Mark as a guide. They also shared another document, "Q", with more stories of Jesus. And each had their own documents, M and L, that the other didn't have access to. Mark, Luke, and Matthew are the synoptic gospels.
• John's gospel is a later, separate creation. He may or may not have had the previous three gospels as guides.

OK, let's look at Jesus's baptism by John the Baptist. It is the first scene in Mark's gospel. Matthew and Luke have the scene also, but they add stories of Jesus's birth and childhood. John's first scene is also the baptism of Jesus by John, although his version tries to make it look like Jesus is not subordinate to John. The gospels in general are a little reluctant to write out this scene clearly because it makes Jesus look like a follower of John. So they hem and haw and write in dialogue to make it seem more palatable.

The fact that it's still in there means it's a basic and early well-known part of the Jesus story, and it's something they can't omit. Even John has to include it, and he has no birth narratives. So a reasonable conclusion to make is that it did happen -- Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist.

So, my reading of this is that Jesus originally was a follower of John the Baptist, one of many who came to him to be baptized. This act was deeply significant to Jesus, and was the beginning of his preaching. Later, especially after John was imprisoned and murdered, Jesus continued his preaching and finally became more popular and significant than John. Some of John's followers switched to Jesus, but probably not all in this early stage. Later the followers of John would join the Way and follow Jesus.

Jesus/Torah: dietary laws

In Mark 7:174-20 Jesus declares all food acceptable to eat; this is another case of his revision of Torah.

Jesus/Torah: healing on the Sabbath

Mark 3:1-6
Here Jesus heals on the Sabbath (a withered hand). The pharisees then conspire with the Herodians to "destroy him," presumably for violating the Sabbath.

Here's the Jewish Enclopedia entry on medical work and the Sabbath:

"The laws relating to the Sabbath, in common with the other ceremonial laws, are set aside in case of danger to life (). Moreover, if such an occasion for the violation of the laws arises, the work should be done not by non-Jews or minors, but by adult Jews or learned and pious rabbis, to show that while the laws of the Sabbath are important, the preservation of life is still more so (Tosef., Shab. xvi. 12; "Yad," l.c. ii. 3). In case of dangerous illness about which physicians disagree, if only one says that certain work should be done in order to save the patient's life, no question need be asked, and any one may perform such work."

So, the withered hand not being life-threatening, Jesus should have waited and healed it on another day. Again, Jesus is redefining how to obey Torah. His action implies that to do good on the Sabbath, even when it is work, is acceptable.

Jesus/Torah: sins

in Mark 2:10 Jesus states "the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins." Here is a typical example of a statement he makes that goes against Torah.

Judaism in three points

This is from Rabbi Telushkin's book "Biblical Literacy." I think it is the best short explanation of what Judaism is about:

1. There is one God
2. His primary demand is ethical behavior
3. All humankind should worship him

It's on page 468.

Jesus as rebel: crucifixion and the Romans

Here's a thought.

Jesus was most likely crucified by the Romans because they considered him a political threat. Religious claims and inter-Jewish rivalry wouldn't matter so much to the Romans as someone making political claims. His cross was tagged with the statement "king of the Jews," which defined his crime by Roman standards. His claim to kingship brought him the death sentence. But what about his apostles? Would the Romans ignore his closest followers if they meant to put down a rebellion? Isn't it interesting that the idea of crucifying the apostles never even comes up? Let's face it, the Romans were fairly brutal about this -- why spare his closest associates? The gospels make various claims as to his popularity, but even Mark indicates that he had thousands of people listening to him (feeding the 4,000 and 5,000 for instance.) Those all weren't followers, but they indicate that Jesus had some popularity.

Another question about the gospels account of JC.

Jesus/Torah: what he opposed: sabbath

Examples of what Jesus opposed in Torah:

Mark 2:23-28

"One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain. 24The Pharisees said to him, "Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?"
25He answered, "Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? 26In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions."

27Then he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. 28So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath." "

Line 27 is the key. In Torah keeping the Sabbath is one of the 10 Commandments:

Exodus 20:10
"but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates."

Here Jesus wants to reinterpret the rules for keeping the Sabbath. His first statement, line 27, that sabbath is for man and not the other way around, implies that we can define how we keep the sabbath. Line 28 indicates that in particular, he, Jesus can determine how to keep the sabbath.

The key part of the commandment is "you shall do no work." Now how do we define "work"? In the story Jesus was obviously violating the standard interpretation -- that's why the pharisees were objecting to his behavior.

Why doe Jesus propose this new interpretation?