The Eye Of A Needle

 

The Eye Of A Needle (Mark 10:25)

Brett A. Todd

If you have ever spent time reading the New Testament of the Bible, more than likely you came across the words of Jesus, “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” (Mark 10:25). Bible scholars agree, there is no question that Jesus said these words, but there are those gullible preachers who have and continue spread a wishful interpretation in order to sound dynamic and educated. For them, the eye of a needle was actually a small gate in Jerusalem where camels had to crawl on their knees to fit through the gate into the city of Jerusalem. There's one problem with this popular “educated” and “dynamic” interpretation, it is not true. There is not one shred of archaeological evidence that such a gate ever existed in Jerusalem.

Where did they get this interpretation? The furthest back we can go with this interpretation is to that of Theophylact, a Byzantine archbishop of the Middle Ages (around 1055 – after 1107 CE) who wrote a Bible commentary. Some have suggested that his interpretation came from the early Church Fathers, however, there is no such evidence that goes any further back than Theophylact himself.

Simply, Jesus' words about the eye of a needle are actually an exaggeration to catch the attention of his followers. It is a hyperbole. As you read the words of Jesus throughout the four Gospels, you will discover that he used this type of speech a lot. Here is another example found in Luke 6:41, Jesus said, “Why do you see the speck in your neighbor's eye but do not notice the log in your own eye?” And yes, there are more... Jesus loved to use this effective teaching method. Jesus used a lot of hyperboles. Adela Yarbro Collins writes:

The hyperbolic character of the saying catches the attention of the audience effectively and leads them to confront seriously the problem with wealth as a hindrance to entering the kingdom.

Did other ancient writers use such exaggerations to connect with their students and readers? Yes, for example, in early Judaism we find such statements where it is an elephant, not a camel, that had to go through the eye of a needle (See Witherington III).

In our next study, we will answer the question of whether or not Jesus was a pure Jew.

Jesus The Messiah With A Little Caveat

Jesus The Messiah

With A Little Caveat

Brett A. Todd

Did Jesus believe that he was the long-awaited Messiah?  This is a completely different question than asking, did Jesus believe he was God?  God and Messiah are not interchangeable titles but Messiah and King often refer to the same person, like King David in the Bible who is called the king and anointed one (the Messiah). Psalm 28:8 referring to King David reads, “The Lord is the strength of his people; he is the saving refuge of his anointed.”  Yes, the title Messiah means “the anointed one”.  

Did Jesus believe he was the Messiah, the anointed one (the King)?  Yes.  Among scholars, there really isn't much of a debate on this matter.  This is how Mark 15:32 narrates this Jesus title, “Let the Messiah, the king of the Jews, come down from the cross now...”

You may remember the story of when Jesus stood before Pilate.  Pilate asked Jesus point blank if he was the King of the Jews.  Jesus' answer is interesting, he said, “You say so.”  Which means that yes I am but I don't need to say because you already did (Mark 15:2). Further, all four Gospels agree, above the head of Jesus on the cross hung a sign that read, “King of the Jews” (Mark 15:26).  So once again, did Jesus believe he was the Messiah, the King of the Jews?  More than likely, yes, and he died for it as well.

Here is a little caveat, Jesus was not the first person to claim to be the Messiah.  You may remember, even in the Gospels there is a warning that many will claim to be the Messiah (Matthew 24:5).  But there were even those before Jesus who claimed to be the Messiah.

Back in 2000, archaeologists discovered what some scholars believe to be the most important archaeology find since the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1946/7.  Along the banks of the Dead Sea, they found a stone, now called “Gabriel's Stone”, with peculiar writing.  One can view this magnificent stone now displayed at the Israel Museum in Jerusalem.

Why is this stone so significant?  This 4th-1st century BCE stone, or earlier, refers to a messiah who will die and rise from the dead in three days.  In Hebrew, it reads, “In three days, live”  Of course, this stone is not referring to the Jesus of the New Testament. Instead, according to  Israel Knohl, a professor of Biblical studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem believes this refers to Simon Peraea (4 BCE).

What does all of this mean?  Long before Jesus came along, there was a certain expectation that a Messiah King would come and deliver them, the Jews, from captivity.  Jesus was just one of those individuals who believed he too was the Messiah King.  More than likely,  Christians borrowed this same idea of the Messiah dying and being raised from the dead on the third day from the same source those who wrote Gabriel's Stone got theirs.  Maybe the old proverb from Ecclesiastes is right, “...there is nothing new under the sun.”

In our next study, we will look at the words of Jesus, “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”  What was Jesus talking about, an actual camel and an eye of a needle, or was it a gate found in Jerusalem?

IS THE MAN THE HEAD OF THE WOMAN? (Part 3)

IS THE MAN THE HEAD OF THE WOMAN? (Part 3)

Brett A. Todd

Sometimes I think if the Apostle Paul had any smarts, he would have never penned some of the things he wrote.  But of course, he lived in a different time and culture.  One example is found in 1 Corinthians 11:3 where he said, “But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man, is the head of the woman.”  Some translations read that “...the husband is the head of his wife.” Whatever translation one accepts, for the modern man and woman, Paul's words are not appealing.  Either way, “man” and “woman” is probably the best rendering of this text.

One might ask, however, what did the Greek word for “head” (of a woman) mean during Paul's time? There are a few opinions on this matter.  Let me mention two of them: 

First is the traditional definition which is widely accepted by scholars.  For them, the word “head” represents authority.  However, for some, this definition is gorged with male chauvinism. So, others have come up with a second suggestion that the Greek word for “head” is more accurately defined as “the source”, like the source of the river. Here it means that man is the source of a woman's existence since a woman (Eve) was made from man (Adam). These same scholars are quick to point out that this definition carries with it no sense of authority or of one person ruling over another.  

Let's pause for a moment and ask, “Really?”  Do these male Bible scholars really think this is going to appease the modern women of our day?  “Women, I have good news for you, men are not the head of women, they are just the source of your existence.  Without them, you would not exist.” 

From a scholarly perspective, there is a significant problem with this idea of a man as the source of a woman’s existence. Every Greek lexicon (Dictionary), except for two, defines this Greek word as someone having a superior rank.  The only two lexicons that offers the idea of a man as the “source” is Liddell and Scott as well as Schlier's in the TDNT. However, they offer no example of this use in Greek literature. From my research, I cannot find such an idea for this Greek word.

Why then would some scholars translate this Greek word as “source”?  It seems in their hasty effort to tame Paul for the modern Bible reader of male chauvinism, several male Christian scholars have designed a way to assure women that the Bible, Paul, and Christianity are on their side. However, in their effort to tame Paul, they seem to have no idea that this idea is still demeaning and outdated for the modern woman.

It is best, to be honest with ourselves and the Bible and recognize that this ancient literature holds many,  ideas that are improper, sinful, and even inhuman when dealing with God's creation, such as racism, classism, ableism, heterosexism, and here, sexism. All of this and more were a part of the Bible's culture.  Yes, Paul was wrong. 

In our next study, we will discuss whether or not Jesus believed he was the Kingly Messiah.  We will also look at an archeological find that many Bible readers are not aware of that may support this idea of a kingly messiah in the Bible.

THE EARLY CHURCH'S VIEW OF WOMEN IN THE CHURCH: SHOULD WOMEN SHOULD BE SILENT IN THE CHURCH. (PART 2)

THE EARLY CHURCH'S VIEW OF WOMEN IN THE CHURCH: SHOULD WOMEN SHOULD BE SILENT IN THE CHURCH. (PART 2)

Brett A. Todd

The infamous words of “Paul” that women are supposed to be silent in the church have had a long-lasting effect on the church, even into these modern times.  You probably know this passage as well as anyone.  1 Corinthian 14:34 reads, “Women should be silent in the churches.  For they are not permitted to speak but be subordinate [to men?]...”  Obviously “Paul” never heard of women’s rights or the “Me Too” movement.

How are we supposed to understand these words?  Bible scholars have long debated these words and have come up with several different answers that you might or might not agree with:  1)Traditionally, many scholars through the years simply believed that what Paul said is what he said, women should be silent in the church, period.  Now they may add to this thought that this was the culture of the time and now we live in a culture where women are more educated and should now be allowed to speak in the church.

2) Other Bible scholars are of the opinion that Paul is quoting what some other men said in some of the house churches in Corinthian but were without question wrong.  Women don’t have to be silent in the church.  The hinge pin to this argument is that later Paul scolds these men in verse 36 by basically saying “Where did you get this great revelation?” This is how verse 36 reads, “Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only ones it has reached?”  It is Paul’s slap slap in the face for these early Christian male-chauvinist men.

3) Some other modern scholars have a different twist on these words found in verse 36 that seem to make a lot of sense.  They believe these words (women should be silent in the church) were added later by scribes to keep women subordinate to men, and yes, silent in the church. They note that in other ancient Greek manuscripts these words in verse 36 are located in different locations in 1 Corinthians which is a possible indication that these words were added later.  In other words, these words “women are to be silent in the church” are fraudulent words added by some scribe and not the words of the Apostle Paul.

As I look at these hotly debated words, I think it is self-evident that more than likely, no matter what argument one is inclined to, Paul's thoughts on the matter were probably not too far off from the idea that women should be silent in the church. Yes, today, most modern thinkers would view the Apostle Paul as a male chauvinist or a misogynist.

This is not the end of the story.  Sometime back a scholar at the University of Cambridge was examining this same verse where women are told to be silent in the church and saw something other scholars had missed.  What did this scholar see?  It was a tiny little ancient dash called “distigme-obelos” that indicates this verse was added to Paul’s original words.  Now, this tiny little dash was not found in some obscure ancient Greek manuscript, it was found in one of the oldest and most reliable manuscripts, called the Codex Vaticanus.

Where does this leave us? More than likely, Paul never penned the words that women are to be silent in the church.  Nevertheless, it would not surprise me that he would have agreed with it.

In our next study, we will add “part 3” to our discussion concerning the early church’s view of women in the church.  I was asked for my opinion concerning the Apostle's usage of the word “head” when he said that man was the “head” of the woman (1 Corinthians 11:3).  This should be a fun Scripture to look at.

THE EARLY CHURCH’S VIEW OF WOMEN (PART 1)

 

THE EARLY CHURCH’S VIEW OF WOMEN (PART 1)

Brett A. Todd

In so many ways, the Bible is an outdated record of God’s dealings with human beings.  So, is this true when speaking of women?  This should not surprise anyone since the words of the Bible were written by men and they find their origin in a male-centered society and culture.  Even today, we feel the impact of this male dominant period of history where women are seen as a lesser gender.  You may remember the words of the Apostle Paul, “But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of the woman, and God is the head of Christ.” (1 Corinthians 11:3).  Of course, we can do a song and a dance to lessen the impact of Bible male-chauvinism, nevertheless, this male-chauvinism remains.

One church father who took to heart the Bible’s male-chauvinism was Tertullian (155-220 AD).  Following in the footsteps of his predecessors, he believed that women were the gateway to Satan.  Under the topic, “On the Dress of Women,” he wrote a lot about the sinfulness and lesser quality of women:

The sentence of God on this sex [Females] of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too.  You are the devil’s gateway.

In other words, sin is the fault of women.  Not just the fault of Eve, but all women bare this guilt and are responsible for the sin found in this world.  Later Tertullian blames all women for the death of the Son of God, Jesus.  Tertullian under false pretenses “gorgeously” condemns those of the female gender “race”.

Some Bible scholars have pointed out that the Apostle Paul had a different view of women, similar to Jesus.  Both Jesus and Paul had female disciples, or should we say followers, who were an integral part of their ministry.  Paul even voiced the following words, “There is no longer Jew or Greek; there is no longer slave or free; there is no longer male and female, for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28).  As liberating as these words may have been for this time period, they don’t mean that men and women are equal any more than a slave was equal to his master.

In our next study, we will discuss whether or not the Apostle Paul really said that women are to be silent in the church.

Rewriting History, Pilate (Part 2)

 

Rewriting History, Pilate (Part 2)

Brett A. Todd

Did Pilate actually wash his hands and tell the crowd he was innocent of Jesus' blood?  

It is interesting how easy it is to believe that everything in the Bible must have happened, because, of course, it is in the Bible.  But as we have shown in the past, not everything in the Bible is a historical fact.  It may be true that in the Bible it says that someone said this or that or did this or that, but this does not mean that they really did.  Ancient authors were notorious for spicing up a story just like modern authors today.  The story of Pilate washing his hands and saying he was innocent of Jesus’ blood is just one example of an ancient author creating his own history by spicing up the story.

The reason for historians finding this story of Pilate historically unreliable is pretty simple and clear:

1) Although the story of Jesus before Pilate is found in all four Gospels, only Matthew mentions that Pilate washed his hands and said, “I am innocent of this man’s blood; see to it yourselves” (Matthew 27:24). If such important and “historical” actions occurred and these words were said, then why didn’t the other Gospel record them in their stories as well.

2) Not only are these words and actions of Pilate not found in the other three Gospels (Mark, Luke, and John), but they do not appear in any other Roman or Jewish historical record.  

3) Lastly, these words and actions as recorded by Matthew do not fit the character of Pilate. Simply stated, Pilate was not a peace-loving ruler in any fashion of the word.  Instead, Pilate was a ruthless ruler (a Roman Prefect) who had little patience for such a man as Jesus who Pilate believed set himself up as a king in direct opposition to the emperor of Rome.  This is how Philo of Alexandria describes Pilate, he said Pilate was “naturally inflexible” (Philo, Legatio).  According to F. F Bruce, his rule was offensive and actively aggressive toward the Jews.  Keeping with Pilate's character, the Gospel of Luke describes one of Pilate’s attacks on the Jews, this way, Luke 13:1, “At that very time there was some present who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices.” in the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. Toward the end of his rule, Pilate was ordered back to Rome by the emperor to stand trial for his cruelty and oppression of the Jews.  Pilate was anything but a nice guy.

For historians, it is highly improbable that Pilate ever washed his hands or told the Jewish crowd that he was innocent of Jesus' blood.  More than likely, Pilate’s decision to crucify Jesus was swift, and yes, merciless. 

In our next lesson, we will discuss the early church’s view of women in the church and around the world.  For example, did the Apostle Paul really believe that women were supposed to be silent in the church?  Are all women at fault because Eve was deceived by Satan? This will be a two-part series.

Rewriting History, Pilate (Part 1)

 

Rewriting History, Pilate (Part 1)

Brett A. Todd

Some would object, yet it is true that Christians have been rewriting history from the very beginning.  No more is this apparent than when we examine the infamous life of Pontius Pilate, (Mark 15:1-47) in ancient Christian literature. 

As most readers know, Pilate is the one who condemned Jesus to a violent death on the cross.  But what happened to Pilate after Jesus' crucifixion?  Though the Bible is silent on this matter, there are an array of ancient Christian literary attempts to put Jesus and his Christian followers in a more favorable light. 

Several of these ancient stories are forgeries and some of them even claimed that it wasn’t Pilate who crucified Jesus but Herod Antipas, the 1st-century ruler of Galilee (Gospel of Peter).  Others claimed Pilate caved into the demands of the Jews and was forced to crucify Jesus and thus innocent (Gospel of Nicodemus).  Still, others claimed Pilate became a faithful Christian (Book of the Cock) and in the Paradosis Pilati (Pilate cycle), though Pilate and his wife are condemned to death, they are forgiven.  Later in the Abyssinian Church, Pilate becomes a Saint.

One example of these forged letters is found in a manuscript dated around the 10th or 11th century.  Allegedly, Tiberius Caesar Augustus, who was the Emperor of Rome wrote a letter scolding Pontius Pilate for condemning Jesus to crucifixion on a cross.   But remember, this is a forged letter, Tiberius did not write it.  

Perhaps the word “scolding” is weak because not only did Tiberius demand justice by calling for the death of the entire Jewish race, but he also called for the execution of Pilate.  “Because you condemned Jesus of Nazareth to a violent death that was completely unjust, and before condemning him to death you handed him over to the insatiably furious Jews…I in turn will deliver you to death justly.”  (The Apocryphal Gospels, Ehrman,  and Pleŝe).  

Call to mind that none of these things are recorded in the Bible, this is made-up history.  The Forger wanted his readers to know that Jesus was innocent and that Emperor Tiberius had become the avenging hand of God by killing the real culprits, Pilate, and the Jews.  Did Tiberius know who Jesus was and that he was crucified?  Did Tiberius slaughter the whole Jewish race?  No.  Did he execute Pilate?  No, more than likely, Pilate retired to Rome with a great pension.

How about the Bible, are there any false narratives about Pilate? Did Pilate really wash his hands and say, Matthew 27:24, “I am innocent of this man’s blood; see to it yourselves.”  We will talk about this in our next study.