From Matthew 16 through to the crucifixion, as we read about the Transfiguration and eventually the entrance into Jerusalem, Jesus seems to become "grumpier", more and more frustrated with the disciples. He repeats things to them and they still don't get it. I find this change -- from patience to impatience -- understandable as Jesus seems to be running out of time. The "final exam" is coming soon and the students are not prepared! (Also, stepping back, I continue to be impressed with the humility of the gospel authors -- they are willing to admit that the disciples didn't get it....)
What a great observation. As I was putting this post together I was rereading the end of Matthew, and that totally comes through: the three disciples snoozing at Gethsemane. Jesus is like, “Guys! All I’m asking is that you stay awake!”
I get your point exactly here, Joel. As I mentioned last week, I'm reading the New Living Translation in an edition published by Alabaster Press. The verse numbers are very unobtrusive, and I was able to read Matthew as a unified story, which made a huge difference. I felt like I was sitting across a table from Matthew, and he was excitedly telling me everything he knew about this guy Jesus.
In the gospels I expected to read a lot of preaching, that is; to see a word-focused ministry just as so many church services are centered on the Biblical text and a sermon for any given Sunday. There are some longer stretches of speech by Jesus, of course, but what I came away with was that Jesus is a man of compassionate action. At the end of the gospel during his trial he doesn't speak at all, to the amazement of his judges. And at the crucifixion it is all body language.
Also, thank you, Joel, for sharing your editor's eye and skill at interpreting the make-up and layout of text. Totally enjoying what you offer.
Thanks, Teri! You’re right about the minimal teaching. In Matthew, the Sermon on the Mount offers one big block of teaching. Otherwise, there’s not much sustained teaching until the end of the book. Jesus as “a man of compassionate action” is a lovely way to put the person we encounter there.
I have a couple of more specific things that stood out to me, as I try to ignore all the distractions of modern Bibles (red letter texts popping off the page, all the aforementioned divisions and subheadings).
One, in yet another week in which Jesus' name got used to support some wildly different viewpoints, it was interesting to read the parable of the 2 sons, one who said he'd do his father's wishes but didn't, and the other who said no but then did it. Words aren't enough!
Two, I always love how the disciples didn't automatically know it was Judas who'd betrayed him. Judas was good at hiding who he was! Everyone's like, "Who's going to do it? Is it me?" I've been betrayed by people I thought were my friends too, and I find this oddly comforting, how confused they all were.
Three, in Mark 5, I noticed how both the demon-possessed man and the woman who'd been bleeding for 12 years were restored to their communities as part of their healing. This is of course super important in collective societies, which all were at the time. But I think this speaks to our own broken and individualistic society as well.
Those distracting headings are different for every Bible, and I've gotten so my mind completely blocks them out as I scan the page. The reference markings for chapters and verses are less distracting when the text is printed into paragraphs or poetic verse format.
The style change between Matthew and Mark is quite apparent. They both tell of the same incidents, but Mark is much more abrupt. My maternal grandmother once observed, "The reasons the Gospels are different is because everyone remembers the same events differently." Matthew was one of Jesus' disciples but Mark was writing down Peter's recollections. The early church figure of Papais, "a hearer of John and a friend of Polycarp" as described by Eusebius, said about the Gospel of Mark:
"Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements."
Thanks for pointing out and diagramming the story. Our western culture has minimized story, in favoring exposition--and more recently, favoring propaganda narratives. Going through Matthew and Mark so far, it is obvious that the story (not merely the stories) had circulated orally before it was written. Yet without gratuitous variations that changed the story. Early and later readers find it compelling.
Yes, and I think the emphasis on "story" was cultural -- most people of the time did not read and write and so communicated by passing on stories. (We have, from that age, Aesop's fables as an example.) Jesus deliberately created entertaining stories with a particular point and then left them out there for people to mull over. Often the disciples (like us) weren't interested in mulling over the story and were quick to ask, "So... what's the point?" But the stories Jesus told resonated not only with his disciples and that culture, but continue to resonate today (as noted in the original post.)
Great question. I haven’t explored it remotely enough to answer. I’ve seen the chiastic structure modeled in several books of the Bible, but I’ve not pursued it much—alas.
Well, you beat me with this sophisticated thinking I realized I needed to read slowly and chew well each phrase. Yes! I noticed, it’s better to read the whole Gospel to sink in.
I got a Schuyler Treveris and it is an ESV that is laid out very close to that NEB you have in the pictures. I absolutely love this bible (but boy did the price hurt).
You make such an important point in this essay. I think it is a consequence of a long history of trying to break things up into half hour sermons over the centuries, we've just come to approach our studies in this way.
I have been reading through the gospel of John over and over the past few months after watching a talk about how many overlapping themes are in the book and how there are all these links between different points in the book and to various Old Testament writings.
I don't think there is any malicious or laziness in how we've come to approach the Bible per se, but you are absolutely right that we need to be approaching these Scriptures more holistically.
My favorite parable is the Prodigal Son. When I was young, I identified with the elder son - I didn't get into much trouble as an adolescent, and I generally followed the rules. Now that I'm older, I see clearly how "prodigal" I can be, every day. I thank God He is like the forgiving father and will always welcome me home.
I have been a reader of the gospels most of my life, but usually not at length and not in succession. So, a new perspective on the story of the man by the Pool of Bethesda in John 5 was a little disturbing. I have always felt very sorry for this man, but you know what? I am rethinking that point of view. I am still very sorry for his apparent debilitating condition, but I wonder if he is a shyster. He never answers Jesus questions directly. He doesn't lie, but he is evasive. He never does say that he wants to be healed but Jesus heals him anyway. Enter the Pharisees who chide this man because the healing was on the Sabbath. The man then rebuffs the blame, saying it was the one who healed him who caused him to sin. He would have blamed Jesus by name, I think, but he doesn't know his name.
The scene now shifts to a later time at the Temple where Jesus reveals to the man that he was his healer, but his announcement is couched in a warning, "See, you have been made well. Sin no more lest a worse thing come upon you." What? Sin no more? What sin could this paraplegic do? What kind of trouble can this guy get into? He can't even get into the pool right next to him. But watch what happens next - the former invalid walks himself to the Jewish authorities and identifies Jesus as the man who healed him. That's gratitude? Was this man an informer - for hire - all along? Was this the sin he must give up? And what does this say about Jesus? Yes, he reaches out to the poor and helpless, but apparently, he also reaches out to back-stabbing no-goodnics. Thanks be to God.
I read through the gospels every year. I always see something new about Jesus, his disciples, and his opponents. I always see myself reflected in his hard-headed and slow-to-understand disciples. When Jesus calls them, "O ye of little faith," I see it as a term of endearment, and gladly take my place in that group.
That's a great insight about the charcoal fires; I never realized that.
It was very illuminating for me to read through all the Gospels in a disciplined manner in September. Thank you for organizing it.
When I was young, I imagined myself living in Jesus' time and being an eager follower of him. Now that I'm older (64), I see myself often identifying with the Pharisees, to my shame. They had a lot to lose, and Jesus was clearly a threat to their status. I can understand that they were trying to preserve stability in a very unstable era. When I find myself being angry and/or judgmental, I have to ask myself, "Are you being Pharisaical or Christian here?"
It's not a parable but a resurrection story early in Luke (7:17) that caught my attention. Jesus comes upon a funeral of a young man who was the only son of a widowed woman. One translation of the event says, "His heart broke," and he said to her, "Don't cry." He raised the young man back to life and the text says, "he gave him back to his mother." This is a very touching story, and maybe a bit of foreshadowing? According to some church traditions, Jesus was the only son of his mother, Mary, a widow, and he would also die young. Did his heart go out in a special way to this woman because Jesus knew that his mother would suffer a similar experience?
From Matthew 16 through to the crucifixion, as we read about the Transfiguration and eventually the entrance into Jerusalem, Jesus seems to become "grumpier", more and more frustrated with the disciples. He repeats things to them and they still don't get it. I find this change -- from patience to impatience -- understandable as Jesus seems to be running out of time. The "final exam" is coming soon and the students are not prepared! (Also, stepping back, I continue to be impressed with the humility of the gospel authors -- they are willing to admit that the disciples didn't get it....)
What a great observation. As I was putting this post together I was rereading the end of Matthew, and that totally comes through: the three disciples snoozing at Gethsemane. Jesus is like, “Guys! All I’m asking is that you stay awake!”
I get your point exactly here, Joel. As I mentioned last week, I'm reading the New Living Translation in an edition published by Alabaster Press. The verse numbers are very unobtrusive, and I was able to read Matthew as a unified story, which made a huge difference. I felt like I was sitting across a table from Matthew, and he was excitedly telling me everything he knew about this guy Jesus.
In the gospels I expected to read a lot of preaching, that is; to see a word-focused ministry just as so many church services are centered on the Biblical text and a sermon for any given Sunday. There are some longer stretches of speech by Jesus, of course, but what I came away with was that Jesus is a man of compassionate action. At the end of the gospel during his trial he doesn't speak at all, to the amazement of his judges. And at the crucifixion it is all body language.
Also, thank you, Joel, for sharing your editor's eye and skill at interpreting the make-up and layout of text. Totally enjoying what you offer.
Thanks, Teri! You’re right about the minimal teaching. In Matthew, the Sermon on the Mount offers one big block of teaching. Otherwise, there’s not much sustained teaching until the end of the book. Jesus as “a man of compassionate action” is a lovely way to put the person we encounter there.
I have a couple of more specific things that stood out to me, as I try to ignore all the distractions of modern Bibles (red letter texts popping off the page, all the aforementioned divisions and subheadings).
One, in yet another week in which Jesus' name got used to support some wildly different viewpoints, it was interesting to read the parable of the 2 sons, one who said he'd do his father's wishes but didn't, and the other who said no but then did it. Words aren't enough!
Two, I always love how the disciples didn't automatically know it was Judas who'd betrayed him. Judas was good at hiding who he was! Everyone's like, "Who's going to do it? Is it me?" I've been betrayed by people I thought were my friends too, and I find this oddly comforting, how confused they all were.
Three, in Mark 5, I noticed how both the demon-possessed man and the woman who'd been bleeding for 12 years were restored to their communities as part of their healing. This is of course super important in collective societies, which all were at the time. But I think this speaks to our own broken and individualistic society as well.
Those distracting headings are different for every Bible, and I've gotten so my mind completely blocks them out as I scan the page. The reference markings for chapters and verses are less distracting when the text is printed into paragraphs or poetic verse format.
The style change between Matthew and Mark is quite apparent. They both tell of the same incidents, but Mark is much more abrupt. My maternal grandmother once observed, "The reasons the Gospels are different is because everyone remembers the same events differently." Matthew was one of Jesus' disciples but Mark was writing down Peter's recollections. The early church figure of Papais, "a hearer of John and a friend of Polycarp" as described by Eusebius, said about the Gospel of Mark:
"Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements."
A few interesting things I noticed in Mark:
1) That Jesus spoke Aramaic when he did miracles
2) he need some miracle practice to get up to speed
3) he was referred to a carpenter In Mark, not just the son of one. (Matt)
so he wasn't a layabout all those years
4) there seem to be alternate endings? According to that renown biblical scholar ChatGPT
many academics thought the "real" ending had been lost
Thanks for pointing out and diagramming the story. Our western culture has minimized story, in favoring exposition--and more recently, favoring propaganda narratives. Going through Matthew and Mark so far, it is obvious that the story (not merely the stories) had circulated orally before it was written. Yet without gratuitous variations that changed the story. Early and later readers find it compelling.
Yes, and I think the emphasis on "story" was cultural -- most people of the time did not read and write and so communicated by passing on stories. (We have, from that age, Aesop's fables as an example.) Jesus deliberately created entertaining stories with a particular point and then left them out there for people to mull over. Often the disciples (like us) weren't interested in mulling over the story and were quick to ask, "So... what's the point?" But the stories Jesus told resonated not only with his disciples and that culture, but continue to resonate today (as noted in the original post.)
How do you fit narrative arc and chiastic structure together?
Great question. I haven’t explored it remotely enough to answer. I’ve seen the chiastic structure modeled in several books of the Bible, but I’ve not pursued it much—alas.
Well, you beat me with this sophisticated thinking I realized I needed to read slowly and chew well each phrase. Yes! I noticed, it’s better to read the whole Gospel to sink in.
Thank you for this home work.
I got a Schuyler Treveris and it is an ESV that is laid out very close to that NEB you have in the pictures. I absolutely love this bible (but boy did the price hurt).
You make such an important point in this essay. I think it is a consequence of a long history of trying to break things up into half hour sermons over the centuries, we've just come to approach our studies in this way.
I have been reading through the gospel of John over and over the past few months after watching a talk about how many overlapping themes are in the book and how there are all these links between different points in the book and to various Old Testament writings.
I don't think there is any malicious or laziness in how we've come to approach the Bible per se, but you are absolutely right that we need to be approaching these Scriptures more holistically.
My favorite parable is the Prodigal Son. When I was young, I identified with the elder son - I didn't get into much trouble as an adolescent, and I generally followed the rules. Now that I'm older, I see clearly how "prodigal" I can be, every day. I thank God He is like the forgiving father and will always welcome me home.
I have been a reader of the gospels most of my life, but usually not at length and not in succession. So, a new perspective on the story of the man by the Pool of Bethesda in John 5 was a little disturbing. I have always felt very sorry for this man, but you know what? I am rethinking that point of view. I am still very sorry for his apparent debilitating condition, but I wonder if he is a shyster. He never answers Jesus questions directly. He doesn't lie, but he is evasive. He never does say that he wants to be healed but Jesus heals him anyway. Enter the Pharisees who chide this man because the healing was on the Sabbath. The man then rebuffs the blame, saying it was the one who healed him who caused him to sin. He would have blamed Jesus by name, I think, but he doesn't know his name.
The scene now shifts to a later time at the Temple where Jesus reveals to the man that he was his healer, but his announcement is couched in a warning, "See, you have been made well. Sin no more lest a worse thing come upon you." What? Sin no more? What sin could this paraplegic do? What kind of trouble can this guy get into? He can't even get into the pool right next to him. But watch what happens next - the former invalid walks himself to the Jewish authorities and identifies Jesus as the man who healed him. That's gratitude? Was this man an informer - for hire - all along? Was this the sin he must give up? And what does this say about Jesus? Yes, he reaches out to the poor and helpless, but apparently, he also reaches out to back-stabbing no-goodnics. Thanks be to God.
I read through the gospels every year. I always see something new about Jesus, his disciples, and his opponents. I always see myself reflected in his hard-headed and slow-to-understand disciples. When Jesus calls them, "O ye of little faith," I see it as a term of endearment, and gladly take my place in that group.
Joel,
That's a great insight about the charcoal fires; I never realized that.
It was very illuminating for me to read through all the Gospels in a disciplined manner in September. Thank you for organizing it.
When I was young, I imagined myself living in Jesus' time and being an eager follower of him. Now that I'm older (64), I see myself often identifying with the Pharisees, to my shame. They had a lot to lose, and Jesus was clearly a threat to their status. I can understand that they were trying to preserve stability in a very unstable era. When I find myself being angry and/or judgmental, I have to ask myself, "Are you being Pharisaical or Christian here?"
It's not a parable but a resurrection story early in Luke (7:17) that caught my attention. Jesus comes upon a funeral of a young man who was the only son of a widowed woman. One translation of the event says, "His heart broke," and he said to her, "Don't cry." He raised the young man back to life and the text says, "he gave him back to his mother." This is a very touching story, and maybe a bit of foreshadowing? According to some church traditions, Jesus was the only son of his mother, Mary, a widow, and he would also die young. Did his heart go out in a special way to this woman because Jesus knew that his mother would suffer a similar experience?