Suffering, Evil, and the Range Effect

 This post appeared on Bart Ehrman's blog in October 2022 and led to a whole lot of discussion. Bart and some other participants in the blog became agnostic or atheist in response to the problem of suffering, so I thought I'd try to contribute to the discussion.

---

Suffering, Evil, and the Range Effect

Dennis J. Folds, Ph.D.

The problem of suffering has plagued theologians for centuries, and continues to haunt thinkers today, including the prodigious progenitor of this blog. Its cousin, the problem of evil, similarly challenges religious scholars to explain how a just and loving God (JLG) could create a world in which people experience extreme suffering, especially when caused by the intentional (evil) actions of other people. Many conclude that JLG doesn’t exist, and if there is a God, it doesn’t have the attributes we wish it had. In this post I’ll argue that the experience of suffering and the perception of evil are inevitable consequences of biological consciousness, because of a psychological phenomenon called the range effect. As such, suffering and evil are insufficient reasons to reject all notions of a God.  I’ll offer my own view for your consideration. 

Suffering spans two categories: physical pain and emotional pain such as grief and distress. Evil also spans two categories, certain intentional actions of people, and acts of nature.

The range effect refers to the psychological tendency to perceive extremes based on the range of stimuli under consideration. A simple example: I give you a pile of 100 colored tiles to sort:  you are to put only blue tiles in one bin and all other tiles in a second bin.  If the starting pile has tiles across the full range of colors humans perceive, you’ll tend to include some blue-greenish tiles in the blue bin.  But if the starting pile has a restricted range, with Navy blues and Carolina blues and cyan and aquamarine, and some greens, but no yellows, oranges, or reds, you’ll tend to exclude some of those blue-greenish tiles from the blue bin. The same thing happens if I ask you to judge which sounds are loud, which lights are bright, or which peppers are hot. In everyday life, we judge extremes based on the range of values experienced across our lifespan. But we do make adjustments for current and recent experiences.  You may have had a Carolina reaper 25 years ago, but you can still experience a habanero as extremely hot today. 

What’s the point?  As biological creatures capable of experiencing physical pain, we will inevitably judge the more intense experiences of pain as “suffering”. The man who has the bad toothache while his wife is giving birth still experiences agony. It is his experiential range that shapes his judgment of extremes, no matter how much he is ridiculed by her friends. 

Emotional pain follows a similar pattern, though more complex. I can’t expose you to a range of emotions in one hour the way I can give you piles of colored tiles to sort, or peppers to taste. Life experiences create a range of emotions, and some early experiences lead to extreme suffering that moderates with time. Consider the anguish of a toddler deprived of a toy, of a 14 year old girl whose haircut didn’t turn out as planned, of the 17 year old boy rejected by the prettiest girl in the world. These anguishes become less extreme in future episodes. Life continues to give us novel sources of grief: death of a parent, loss of a job, infidelity of a spouse. As we build our repertoire of experiences of emotional pain, our perception of “extreme” suffering adapts. Perhaps that’s why many senior adults can persist in the face of so much apparent loss.  As the Black Knight said, “I’ve had worse!”

The capacity to experience physical pain has an obvious survival benefit: it is the primary mechanism by which we learn to avoid things that cause physical injury. We learn to try to avoid the hot stove or the sharp point or the too-heavy lift because we experience physical pain. Emotional pain, too, has survival benefit: we have social bonds with our family, our tribe, and in a sense, our possessions. The aggregation of people and their possessions into a community gives a survival edge to its members compared to a loner. When the social bonds are strained or broken, we feel emotional pain. We grieve when a community member dies, or when trust is broken, or possessions destroyed. The capacity to experience emotional pain helps us learn to try to avoid those events.

Evil is the more complex topic. I’ll summarily dismiss the so-called “evil” inferred from acts of nature. We live in a natural environment that works the way it works – there are earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes, floods, droughts, and rattlesnakes. There are diseases, poisons, and accidents. Sure, if we think some sort of sentient being is scripting those things, we might judge those things as evil when visited upon us (and just, when upon our enemies). I’m more concerned with the intentional acts of people – acts that cause considerable pain and loss to other people. (I’ll ignore the mass destruction of other life forms, such as mosquitoes, as a candidate for evil.) But when one person intentionally kills, or maims, or otherwise harms another person, with no acceptable justification (such as self defense), this is evil. It results in pain and loss, and sometimes the manifestation of that pain gives pleasure to the perpetrator. How could a JLG permit such things to happen? 

Sometimes the perception of evil is quite dependent on one’s perspective. A teenager may view parental restrictions on certain activities as irredeemably evil, but others may judge the infliction of such pain as justifiable. Still, though, there are acts that are so heinous that no one offers a plausible justification for them. Or, justifications accepted in the past are no longer judged valid in retrospect. Ethnic groups once lumped in with mosquitoes as legitimate targets of extermination may come to be seen as fellow human beings, and past attempts to purge them may become seen as some of history’s greatest evils. 

The perception of evil, then, also has some survival benefits. It allows us to categorize some behaviors in our communities as utterly unacceptable, and to justify sanctions against those who commit them.  

The range effect seems to apply to the perception of evil. If all women are covered to their ankles, displaying the lower calf may be scandalous. If most all men beat their wives, only the most extreme instances may be judged inappropriate. If all sheriffs take bribes, only those who extort extreme sums are judged evil.  Perhaps the capacity to commit acts perceived as evil is an inevitable consequence of our behavioral complexity. 

The fact that people suffer, some in prolonged, extreme agony caused by evil actions of others, leads some observers to conclude that God – or at least a JLG  – doesn’t exist. How could a JLG create a world in which people suffer so, especially at the hands of their fellow man?  I’ll stipulate that I don’t believe in the fabled JLG of our childhood, either.  My core assertion, however, is that the problem of suffering and the problem of evil are insufficient grounds for atheism.  

So here’s a thought experiment: our hero (let’s call him Bart) has a prolonged discussion with three of his friends about the problem of suffering and of evil.  Suddenly, God appears in a whirlwind and tells Bart to put his britches on, and to prepare to answer some questions.  Bart says, “So, you really do exist?”.  God says, “Yes Bart, I am. I’ve been listening to your discussion and reading your work.  You make some mighty good points.  I tell you what – make me a list of things that occur in the world that ought not to be allowed, so that people will believe in me.  Then we’ll give it a try.”  So Bart and his friends draft the list, argue about it some, and finally agree.  They present it to God.  He looks it over, corrects some spelling errors (being a perfect being), and agrees to it.  He presents Bart with a giant RESET button and allows him to press it. Voila!  A new universe is spawned, a new heaven and earth appear, and humanity evolves.  None of the things on Bart’s list occur.  No one experiences the conditions of suffering that Bart found objectionable. But people still die. They can die from drowning, from falling off a cliff, from chronic diseases and acute conditions.  Eventually a new hero appears – let’s call him Bart Prime.  He and his friends conclude that a JLG cannot exist, and reluctantly embrace agnosticism or atheism.  No JLG could create a world in which people suffer so, and in which they are capable of so much evil. The range effect has triumphed. 

My perspective?  There are two fundamental possibilities. A: This is all random fluctuations in a vacuum (real or simulated), and nothing matters.  B: There is something behind this, and some things matter.  As biological creatures, we are predisposed to perceive hidden causes, because they are usually there.  That bush that’s shaking: probably a predator hiding behind it.  That strange sound: probably something dangerous. So maybe A is true but humanity as a whole has perceived an ultimate hidden cause, whether one divine being or a pantheon of them.  But B seems to be true, to me and to billions of others.

I’m a hard-core, card-carrying scientist, so I recognize two sources of authority: empirical data (human experience) and logic (human reasoning).  I think the JLG is purely the product of wishful human reasoning, and is not supported by human experience (see: Job). But it seems to me that something creative is expressing itself in the world (real or simulated) in which we live. I’m content to call that creative something “God”, although other names will suffice. This God seems to drive life to emerge from non-life, multi-cellular organisms from single-cell organisms, and intelligent life from non-intelligent life. The pinnacle, so far, is intelligent life that can create and manipulate symbols (ideas, words, mathematics), and in doing so, can reason about whether God exists and what its properties might be. This capability gives rise to values, that some outcomes are better than others. Living in freedom is better than being enslaved. Allowing Jews to live with freedom and dignity is better than exterminating them in gas chambers. Girls developing normally and being educated is better than girls having their genitals mutilated and not allowed to go to school.  These values are illusions if this is all random fluctuations in a vacuum. 

If I examine a colored tile, I could be mistaken when I say the tile is blue.  But I cannot be mistaken that it seems to me to be blue. And it seems to me that outcomes matter, that some things are better than others. And it seems to be good to debate which outcomes are better, and what actions lead to the better outcomes. I call myself a Christian humanist: it is the outcome for humanity, writ large, that is most important. We seek to reduce suffering and suppress evil experienced by people. We seek to improve physical and mental health, to promote longevity and thriving. This quest emerged from Christianity, and is largely achieved through science. Neither institution is perfect, but their combination has led to a vast improvement in the human experience. That creative force is driving us upward. It does not seek to be worshiped or appeased. Resist it if you must; I recommend embracing it. 

Jeremiah versus the Deuteronomist Forger

 This is another piece that appeared on Brad Ehrman's blog,  As with the others, it requires a Platinnum level subscription to access and comment.  It is found at 

https://ehrmanblog.org/a-major-forgery-in-the-hebrew-bible-platinum-guest-post-by-dennis-folds/ 

I used this material in various ways over different SS lessons; this piece is an abridged account of my argument.

Jeremiah Versus the Deuteronomist Forger

Dennis J. Folds, Ph.D.

Given the interest in potential forgeries of NT books and other early Christian writings, I’d like to describe what may have been the most consequential forgery in the history of our Judeo-Christian faith:  the “discovery” of the long-lost book of the law of Moses, which purportedly contained the original covenant between YHWH and the Hebrews. The discovery is described in 2 Kings 22, during the renovation of the Temple commissioned by the young King Josiah. The actions taken in the aftermath of discovery leads scholars to identify the document as the core of our book of Deuteronomy, particularly beginning in DT 12 and the next few chapters. In this post I’ll argue that the document was a forgery, and this forgery was denounced by the prophet Jeremiah. The consequences of the forgery include the centralization of YHWH worship in Jerusalem, acceptance of the existence of a written law of Moses that required animal sacrifices and agricultural donations (tithes) to the priests in Jerusalem, and establishment of priests and Levites as the authoritative custodians of the law.  In short, it became the basis of the Jewish religion that existed at the time of Jesus. And, I maintain, it was forged. 

Our book of Jeremiah is replete with his criticism of the religious establishment in Jerusalem, and he explicitly accuses the scribes of falsifying documents:

[Jer 8:8] "How can you say, `We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us’? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie.”

Of course I can’t prove that the forgery he condemns is the one “found” in the temple,  But the things Jeremiah denounces in his conflict with the religious leaders align rather well with some of the contents of the middle chapters of Deuteronomy. 

The primary basis of the conflict was disagreement on the content of the authentic covenant between YHWH and Israel.  Jeremiah did not believe that the elaborate system of offerings and festivals were part of the law of YHWH.  He did believe that YHWH’s law required worshiping YHWH only, plus ethical treatment of fellow human beings. Jeremiah believed that failure to comply with those requirements could not be ablated by offerings and feasts.  Jeremiah believed that the failure of the people to comply with the true requirements of the law would result in their punishment, in the form of being conquered by Babylon. Although worship of other gods was at the top of the list of transgressions, mistreatment of vulnerable people was also prominent in Jeremiah’s complaint. 

Prior to this forged document, there was no reference to a written law of YHWH (or of Moses). Scour the stories in Judges, in Samuel, and in Kings, and the literary prophets who preceded Jeremiah. There’s no indication of any awareness of a written law. Nor is there any veneration of Moses as the great lawgiver. None of the stories about Samuel, David, Elijah, or Elisha involve a written law or reference to Moses as lawgiver. Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, and Micah are critical of sacrifices and feasts, and call for protection of the vulnerable. There is resounding condemnation of sacrifices and other rituals while mistreating fellow human beings.  There are almost zero references to Moses. 

Only in our book of Deuteronomy, and a few follow-up passages early in Joshua, is there a claim that Moses wrote the law. The only writing mentioned elsewhere was the Decalogue, on two stone tablets, carried in the ark of the covenant.  But Deuteronomy claims that Moses wrote the entire law. (One of my eye-opening realizations came to me spontaneously decades ago: if Moses had indeed written the law, he would have written it in Egyptian hieroglyphics, having been raised an Egyptian prince. And none of the freed Hebrew slaves would have been literate, so they could not have read it!)

The key passages in Deuteronomy tip off the forgery.  YHWH is said to have told Moses that after they conquer the promised land, eventually YHWH will choose a place for himself, and all worship is to be centralized there.  Moreover, the people may one day decide to install a king, and when they do, he will have responsibilities to ensure the covenant is kept as written. Mighty handy, wasn’t it, to find such a document in the Temple, in the face of the Babylonian threat, and to foist that forgery onto a young king who didn’t want to lose his throne. This covenant promised that YHWH would protect the nation if the people followed its rules. So Josiah set in motion the reformation that centralized worship in Jerusalem and put the religious power in the hands of the priests there.  The ancillary places of worship, spread throughout the countryside, were shut down. People had to come to Jerusalem to offer their sacrifices and bring their tithes.  

Although he certainly supported the ouster of the worship of gods other than YHWH, Jeremiah did not believe that the system of offerings and festivals of YHWH were part of the authentic covenant, and did not support the mandatory centralization of worship in Jerusalem.  Mostly, however, Jeremiah objected to the assurances given to the people by the prophets and priests that they would be delivered from YHWH’s punishment when, in his view, they were still practicing a corrupted faith.  He considered these assurances to be fraudulent representations of the true covenant between YHWH and the people.  Jeremiah’s ongoing disagreement with the Jerusalem establishment resulted in his imprisonment on more than one occasion.  

Jeremiah’s family may have been directly impacted by Josiah’s reformation.  According to Jer. 1:1, Jeremiah’s family was a family of priests in An’athoth in the land of Benjamin.  As such they may have had their authority, and indeed their livelihood, greatly reduced by the reformation.  No information is available on the extent to which Jeremiah’s family was affected by Josiah’s centralization of worship in Jerusalem.  Given that they were not Levites and were not in Jerusalem, it is reasonable to infer that the impact was significant.  This may have set the tone for the later on-going conflict between Jeremiah and the religious leaders in Jerusalem.

From his preaching, we can infer that Jeremiah’s view of the covenant included the following:

• Worship YHWH only

• Do not oppress the widows, orphans, or aliens

• Do not shed innocent blood

• Do not murder

• Do not steal

• Do not commit adultery

• Do not swear falsely

• Observe the Sabbath

• Deal justly with the poor and needy

Jeremiah’s view is consistent with the understanding reflected in his literary predecessors (Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, and Micah), and in the stories about the pre-literary prophets (Samuel, Elijah, and Elisha). They, too, uniformly denounced the sacrifices and rituals, and called for justice and ethical behavior. Although our current Deuteronomy contains memorable calls for good behavior, it also calls for ritualistic sacrifices, systematic extraction of resources to support the priests and Levites, and concentration of religious authority. This, I assert, was the heart of the forgery. 

As the decades in Babylonian captivity turned into two centuries since the forgery, it became accepted that Moses was the greatest of all time and that he had written this perfect law, received straight from the mouth of YHWH. Luckily, the preserved tradition also included the laudable ethical demands from the deity on how we treat one another. But this concentration of power in elite keepers of the written law, the emphasis on ritual purity, and the smug piety of the self-righteous also permeated this faith. Much of it transmuted into our Christian faith, too.  We still have people who claim there is a written contract – God’s promises as written in the Bible – and we still have experts who are eager to explain it to us.  It all originated in this forged document. It was all based on a lie.

The Plausibility of the Fourth Gospel, Part 2: The Sayings of Jesus

 This is the second of the two-part series that appeared on Bart Ehrman's blog (ehrmanblog.org). I encourage folks to access his blog if you're interested in a scholarly view of the New Testament and early Christian writings.  There's also occasional forays into the Old Testament and other philosophical topics.  A paid subscription is required to access the full contents, but it is modest and 100% goes to charity.

Anyway here's the second part of the series:

The Plausibility of the Fourth Gospel: The Sayings of Jesus

Dennis J. Folds

In Part 1 of this two-part post, I described the vast differences between the gospels of John and Mark in the chronology of events of Jesus’s ministry.  Matthew and Luke follow Mark’s chronology, and these three (the Synoptic Gospels) are thought to be more accurate. I argued that the narrative in John is more credible, as it spread the action over two-plus years, had Jesus going back and forth to Jerusalem for major religious festivals, and had a growing conflict with the religious authorities.  I concluded that if John is accurate, “Holy Week” is entirely Mark’s invention.  But Jesus wasn’t executed for any of his actions, but for what he was saying. In this Part 2, I’ll describe differences in how Jesus talks about himself.  My main conclusion is that if John is accurate, Jesus was probably executed because he was thought to be dangerously insane.

In both Mark and John, Jesus is controversial for what he is teaching. The contrast between the two is starker than the differences in their respective chronologies.  In John, some of his followers defected because his teaching had become so strange. In Mark, Jesus is a simple country preacher, a prophet of the apocalypse, delivering short, pithy parables along with his declaration that the kingdom of God is about to arrive.  His message is a continuation of JTB’s. He talks a lot about the Son of Man, a cosmic figure who appeared in the book of Daniel, and was a major actor in the non-canonical Book of Enoch. In John, Jesus’s message is much more about himself, about his identity as the One, as God’s son. He talks about having coming down from heaven.  He says he is the living water and the bread of life. He says people must eat his flesh and drink his blood to find eternal life. He says he is the resurrection and life, that no one comes to the Father except through him.  He says that all that really matters is whether you believe in him, that he is the Son of God. He doesn’t talk like that in Mark. 

I suppose Jesus could have talked one way when talking to the crowds, and another way when talking to more religiously educated folks.  But if anyone today talked as Jesus talked in John, we would say he was insane.  And, if he was attracting a big political following, we would say he was dangerous.  Mark’s Jesus isn’t much of a threat. His popularity in Galilee might have been worrisome, but it was just a nuisance.  Mark does hint that some thought Jesus was crazy, and his family comes to get him. In John, this crazy talk about how people must eat his flesh and drink his blood led a large proportion of his followers to give up on him, and to subsequently oppose him. They thought he might be suicidal, and surely thought he was insane. 

Both Mark and John make it clear that it was this blasphemy – claiming to be God’s son – that was the main reason the leadership wanted him to be executed.  Mark doesn’t have him say it explicitly, though it is implied strongly enough for the authorities to object.  As this claim was not of concern to Pilate, they had to emphasize his potential role in insurrection. If John’s account is accurate, they believed Jesus was dangerously insane and had to be silenced. It’s one thing for a country preacher to get a big following, but it’s quite another for a madman to upend society and bring the whole house down with him. 

John’s own comments about Jesus indicate that his disciples didn’t understand what Jesus was talking about until after his death.  Perhaps they heard it through their own mental model of the Messiah: he would set up the kingdom of God on earth, and they would be important rulers.  They kept expecting those events, but Jesus kept talking about his identity. Jesus kept talking about how people had to believe he was the Son of God to have eternal life. After they became convinced he had been raised from the dead, they remembered and re-understood some of what he had said.  They re-interpreted his Son of Man sayings to be him talking about himself. Some of them – maybe holdouts from the hard core JTB movement – continued to expect revolution and the imminent apocalypse. But others of them, perhaps from the more educated faction, remembered the message as told by John.  This group would have been more sympathetic to Paul’s emergence, and perhaps helped give rise to it. Paul’s message is not incompatible with John’s.  What matters is what you believe about Jesus being the Son of God.  

Modern scholars seem to want Mark’s Jesus to be the authentic account.  They want John’s to be a later invention, after people had started making divinity claims about him.  They think John put those words in Jesus’s mouth.  If John’s is the more credible narrative of events, perhaps his is also the more accurate description of what Jesus said.  Maybe Mark is the one that distorted Jesus, making him bold and sane, though misunderstood. I offer that is quite plausible that Jesus came to believe that he was the One, and said so aloud, to some audiences. Perhaps his mother had a story and stuck to it.  Certainly, JTB saying that Jesus was the One would be impactful.  Those temptations in the wilderness were of the form, “If you are the Son of God, do so-and-so.” Maybe Jesus struggled with what this meant, and by faith, stepped up to it. Luke has Jesus announce his identity in Nazareth, and the hearers wanted to stone him.  After his death, some of his closest followers remembered those crazy things he said and came to believe it, too.  That created an environment in which Paul’s message could emerge, with whatever influences those original witnesses might have had on him.  Maybe the reason the divinity claims took root is that Jesus actually said some of these things.  And that leaves us with an uncomfortable choice:  Either he was who he said he was, or he was crazy.

The Plausibility of the Fourth Gospel, Part 1: The Chronology of Jesus's Ministry

 This post is one of a two-part post that appeared on Bart Ehrman's blog (ehrmanblog.org), and I'll repost it here so our SS class members and our extended network can have access to it.  I'll post Part 2 as well.

The Plausibility of the Fourth Gospel: The Chronology of Jesus’s Ministry

Dennis J. Folds

The fourth gospel – John – is quite different than the other three in its narration of the events of Jesus’s ministry, and in its rendering of what Jesus taught. The other three tell the same basic story; that’s why they are called the Synoptic Gospels. The differences between the Synoptics and John are so stark that since antiquity John has been thought to be a “spiritual” gospel, implying that the contents should be understood more symbolically and less literally. The Synoptics are thought to be more accurate from a historical perspective.  In this two-part post I’ll argue that the contents of John are quite plausible, and perhaps it is Mark that is distorted. I’ll briefly explore the implications of that possibility for the early evolution of Christian thought. One of the main points is that if John is accurate, Jesus spent the last week of his life hiding in Jerusalem, and Mark invented “Holy Week”. A second conclusion, which I’ll develop in Part 2, is that Jesus was probably executed because he was thought to be dangerously insane. 

Let’s start with the basic chronology of events.  Mark’s is fairly simple:  John the Baptist (JTB) appears in the wilderness, baptizing, and proclaiming the imminent coming of the Messiah. Jesus comes to him and is baptized. The Spirit (in dove form) dive-bombs on Jesus, drives him into the wilderness to be tempted, and then into Galilee to begin his ministry.  JTB is in prison.  Jesus campaigns through Galilee, calling disciples to follow him. He performs miracles and proclaims the imminent kingdom of God. Lots of people believe in him, but religious leaders don’t. They criticize him for healing on the sabbath. The plot pivots when Jesus asks his disciples who they think he is, and Peter says Jesus is the Messiah.  Jesus goes up on a mountain and is transfigured while meeting with Moses and Elijah in the clouds.  His clothes become so white that you’d think he was in a Tide commercial. He comes down from that mountain determined to go to Jerusalem. His disciples think he is going to bring in his kingdom, but he is talking about how the Son of Man is going to be put to death. He continues teaching and performing miracles on the journey.  About a week before Passover, he stages a triumphal entry into Jerusalem, symbolically riding on a donkey. He then goes into the Temple and drives out the merchants and money changers. During that last week of his life, he boldly teaches in the Temple each day. The Jewish authorities want to arrest him without causing a riot. Jesus has a last supper with his disciples, which he tells them to reenact (to remember him), using bread and wine as symbols of his flesh and blood. One of his disciples, Judas, betrays him that night, and leads a mob sent by the religious authorities to seize him. 

The story as told by Matthew and Luke follows that same general outline; their changes are minor. Everything happens after JTB is in prison, and everything happens in Galilee until Jesus is transfigured on that mountain and sets out for Jerusalem. None of the synoptics has Jesus going to Jerusalem as an adult until the triumphal entry scene. 

John’s sequence of events is quite different.  John’s chronology has Jesus ministering for over two years, starting sometime before a Passover, at which time he cleanses the Temple, continuing through a second Passover that Jesus did not attend because of the crowd’s revolutionary sentiments, and then to a third Passover season, during which he was executed. During that two years Jesus is back and forth to Jerusalem for the festivals. He is in confrontation with the religious authorities, and the crowds in Jerusalem want to stone him for what he was saying about himself.  Here are some important details:

1. JTB states that he saw the Spirit (dove) dive-bomb Jesus,  God’s way of showing him that Jesus was the One. JTB tells Jesus, and his own disciples, that Jesus is the One. Some of JTB’s disciples peel off and start following Jesus.

2. Two years before his death, Jesus goes into the Temple in Jerusalem, and drives out the merchants and the money changers.  Many people in Jerusalem believe in him.  

3. Jesus and his disciples go out into the Judean countryside and baptize, alongside JTB. Jesus is becoming more popular than JTB. Jesus withdraws from Judea and returns to Galilee. He returns to Jerusalem for a festival, heals someone on a sabbath, gets condemned by the authorities for working on the sabbath, and for saying he is God’s son.  He returns to Galilee. 

4. Prior to the next Passover, Jesus performs miracles witnessed by crowds headed to Jerusalem. That year he doesn’t go, because the crowds are wanting to proclaim him King. His teaching becomes so strange that many of his followers stop believing. Peter affirms that the core group still believes he is the One. 

5. The next festival – Booths – he returns to Jerusalem, sneaking into town during the middle of the week. People are looking for him, so he pops up in the Temple and starts teaching.  The authorities are miffed. They send the temple police to arrest him, but the police don’t. He has a confrontation with people who had previously believed in him. They said he was a crazy half breed and wanted to kill him, but he hid from them and got out of town.

6. He goes back to Jerusalem for the winter feast, Dedication. As he is walking in the Temple, some Jews spot him and demand that he say, unambiguously, whether he is the Messiah. He says that he’s already told them, but they just don’t believe. He says he’s God’s son, and they want to stone him. They try to seize him, but he slips away from them, leaving town again.

7. Jesus hears that his friend Lazarus is sick, and decides to go see him. His disciples warn him that the Jews still want to kill him, but he’s determined to go. When he gets to Bethany, Lazarus has died.  Jesus raises him from the dead. A crowd from Jerusalem sees it, and tell the leaders about it back in Jerusalem. The council meets and decides Jesus should be put to death, so they issue a warrant for his arrest.  Jesus leaves and hides out in a small village.

8. He stays there until a few days before the Passover. He stages the triumphal entry into Jerusalem, gives a speech talking about the Son of Man’s impending death, and then spends his last few days hiding in Jerusalem. In the home of one of his disciples, he shares his last meal with them.  Before the meal, he washes their feet.  After they eat, they go outside and Judas guides a group of the temple police to arrest Jesus. 

To me, John’s is the more credible account.  John exhibits knowledge of the layout of Jerusalem and the local terrain, and gives a believable timeline of events, anchored to Jewish festivals. In John, there was a period of overlap between Jesus and JTB, and his early disciples came from the JTB movement, whereas in Mark, they started following him without ever having seen him before. In John, Jesus was mostly in Galilee but went to Jerusalem for major festivals, gaining followers in both regions. The conflict with the religious leaders is spread over two-plus years in John, beginning with the cleansing of the temple.  I suspect some of the leaders were disturbed by the commercialization of what they considered holy, and would have approved of what Jesus did, perhaps tacitly.  Subsequently, they would have multiple opportunities to hear him in Jerusalem.  Mark packs everything into a short Galilean campaign. He crams the conflict into a single week in Jerusalem just before Jesus’s arrest. Jesus would have been known to the authorities only by reputation. 

If John is accurate, “Holy Week” is entirely Mark’s invention, perpetuated by Matthew and Luke.  In John, Jesus stages the triumphal entry and then goes into hiding.  His last meal was not the Passover followed by the initiation of the Eucharist; it was a meal preceded by Jesus washing his disciples’ feet. Judas’s betrayal involved leading the temple police to arrest Jesus – not a mob to seize him.   

In both Mark and John, the authorities want Jesus executed because of what he was saying about himself – not because of any actions he took.  In Part 2, I’ll argue for the plausibility of John’s account of the sayings of Jesus.  

More Cases Where Luke Improves the Narrative Compared to Mark and Matthew

 In the previous post, I argued for the Farrer hypothesis, namely, that Luke had both Mark and Matthew in mind (and probably in hand) as he wrote his gospel.  Matthew had used Mark directly, and Luke used them both.  In that post I focused on Luke's rewrite of the nativity story in Matthew.  It was a complete rewrite, and I wouldn't have necessarily concluded that Luke had rewritten Matthew's nativity were it not for the extensive examples throughout Luke where one can find traces of both Mark and Matthew in the same story.  Most telling, to me, is that the changes Luke makes improves the narrative.  Improvements include omitting non sequiturs  (points that don't lead anywhere), giving reasons for why things happened, rewording things so his non-Jewish audience would better understand the story, and removing hyperbole (exaggerations that make a rhetorical point).  Below I describe several stories throughout Luke that are Triple Tradition material (i.e., found in all three Synoptic gospels) that illustrate how Luke improves the narrative.

Parable of the Mustard Seed

Mark 4

30 He also said, “With what can we compare the kingdom of God, or what parable will we use for it? 31 It is like a mustard seed, which, when sown upon the ground, is the smallest of all the seeds on earth; 32 yet when it is sown it grows up and becomes the greatest of all shrubs, and puts forth large branches, so that the birds of the air can make nests in its shade.”

Matthew 13

31 He put before them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed that someone took and sowed in his field; 32 it is the smallest of all the seeds, but when it has grown it is the greatest of shrubs and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and make nests in its branches.”

Matthew improves upon Mark: the mustard seed is sown in his field, not just on the ground. “Puts forth large branches” is changed to simply “becomes a tree”. The birds make nests in the branches of the tree, not in its shade.  

Luke 13

8 He said therefore, “What is the kingdom of God like? And to what should I compare it? 19 It is like a mustard seed that someone took and sowed in the garden; it grew and became a tree, and the birds of the air made nests in its branches.”

Luke improves upon both: the mustard seed is sown in the “garden”, where herbs and spices are grown, not on the ground or in the field. The hyperbole about the mustard seed being the “smallest of all the seeds on earth” is dropped, as it is not true.  And Luke drops the reference to the mustard plant being the "greatest of shrubs”, which is a non-sequitur, but retains Matthew’s modification that it “became a tree” and that birds make their nests “in its branches”.  In English Luke’s version is 31 words; Matthew’s is 51 and Mark’s 55. In this case I think Luke had both; but directly adapted Matthew’s corrections to be even better. 

This parable of the mustard seed is an example of Matthew improving on Mark, and Luke improving on Matthew while retaining some of Matthew’s changes to Mark

The Transfiguration

Mark 9

2 Six days later, Jesus took with him Peter and James and John, and led them up a high mountain apart, by themselves. And he was transfigured before them, 3 and his clothes became dazzling white, such as no one[b] on earth could bleach them. 4 And there appeared to them Elijah with Moses, who were talking with Jesus. 5 Then Peter said to Jesus, “Rabbi, it is good for us to be here; let us make three dwellings,[c] one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah.” 6 He did not know what to say, for they were terrified. 7 Then a cloud overshadowed them, and from the cloud there came a voice, “This is my Son, the Beloved;[d] listen to him!” 8 Suddenly when they looked around, they saw no one with them any more, but only Jesus.

Matthew 17

Six days later, Jesus took with him Peter and James and his brother John and led them up a high mountain, by themselves. 2 And he was transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his clothes became dazzling white. 3 Suddenly there appeared to them Moses and Elijah, talking with him. 4 Then Peter said to Jesus, “Lord, it is good for us to be here; if you wish, I[a] will make three dwellings[b] here, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah.” 5 While he was still speaking, suddenly a bright cloud overshadowed them, and from the cloud a voice said, “This is my Son, the Beloved;[c] with him I am well pleased; listen to him!” 6 When the disciples heard this, they fell to the ground and were overcome by fear. 7 But Jesus came and touched them, saying, “Get up and do not be afraid.” 8 And when they looked up, they saw no one except Jesus himself alone.

Matthew improves Mark’s wording, changing the redundant “apart, by themselves” to simply “by themselves”. He adds that Jesus’s face “shone like the sun”, in addition to his clothing becoming dazzling white. He drops the hyperbolic “such as no one on earth could bleach them”. He changes the figures talking with Jesus from “Elijah with Moses” to be “Moses and Elijah”. He drops the dig at Peter for not knowing what to say because he was terrified. The cloud that overshadowed them becomes a “bright” cloud, and the voice that was heard also says “with whom I am well pleased”. And Jesus comes and touches them to break them out of their trance, and tells them to not be afraid. 

Luke 9

8 Now about eight days after these sayings Jesus[f] took with him Peter and John and James, and went up on the mountain to pray. 29 And while he was praying, the appearance of his face changed, and his clothes became dazzling white. 30 Suddenly they saw two men, Moses and Elijah, talking to him. 31 They appeared in glory and were speaking of his departure, which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem. 32 Now Peter and his companions were weighed down with sleep; but since they had stayed awake,[g] they saw his glory and the two men who stood with him. 33 Just as they were leaving him, Peter said to Jesus, “Master, it is good for us to be here; let us make three dwellings,[h] one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah”—not knowing what he said. 34 While he was saying this, a cloud came and overshadowed them; and they were terrified as they entered the cloud. 35 Then from the cloud came a voice that said, “This is my Son, my Chosen;[i] listen to him!” 36 When the voice had spoken, Jesus was found alone. And they kept silent and in those days told no one any of the things they had seen.

Luke greatly improves this story. Six days becomes eight days, reflecting the Roman way of counting days. Jesus takes Peter, James, and John up on the mountain “to pray”; neither Mark nor Matthew state a reason they were going up on the mountain. He simply says that the appearance of Jesus’s face changed, not the hyperbolic “shone like the sun” per Matthew. Luke also omits the reference to bleach. Moses and Elijah are described as “two men, Moses and Elijah.”  But Luke adds a significant explanation of this whole event: Moses and Elijah appear in glory and are discussing Jesus’s imminent departure, which he was about to accomplish in Jerusalem.  That is, Luke tells us why Moses and Elijah came to talk to Jesus. The dig at Peter is somewhat retained – Peter was “not knowing what he said”, rather than Mark’s “didn’t know what to say”. The voice says that Jesus is “my Chosen” rather than “my Beloved”, and Luke doesn’t add “with whom I am well pleased” per Matthew.   

So in Mark this was a weird event, part of Mark’s plot pivot to get Jesus out of Galilee and into Jerusalem. Luke gives it a purpose: Jesus went up on the mountain to pray, and Moses and Elijah appeared to him in that context to discuss what was about to happen in Jerusalem. 

This story is an example of Luke using Matthew’s version, but keeping some of the Markan contents that Matthew left out (primarily the dig at Peter). But the main improvements are stating a reason they went up on the mountain in the first place, and stating a reason Moses and Elijah came to talk to Jesus. 

The Temptation in the Wilderness

Mark 1

12 And the Spirit immediately drove him out into the wilderness. 13 He was in the wilderness forty days, tempted by Satan; and he was with the wild beasts; and the angels waited on him.

Matthew 4

1 Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. 2 He fasted forty days and forty nights, and afterwards he was famished. 3 The tempter came and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of bread.” 4 But he answered, “It is written,

‘One does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”

5 Then the devil took him to the holy city and placed him on the pinnacle of the temple, 6 saying to him, “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down; for it is written,

‘He will command his angels concerning you,’

    and ‘On their hands they will bear you up,

so that you will not dash your foot against a stone.’”

7 Jesus said to him, “Again it is written, ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’”

8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor; 9 and he said to him, “All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me.” 10 Jesus said to him, “Away with you, Satan! for it is written,

‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve only him.’”

11 Then the devil left him, and suddenly angels came and waited on him.

Matthew takes Mark’s event – Jesus being driven (Mark) or led (Matthew) there – and greatly expands on the story.  He adds that Jesus fasted for 40 days, omits the reference to Jesus being with the wild beasts, and has the angels minister to Jesus after the temptations were over.  But most significantly, Matthew tells us what the temptations were: The devil somehow talks to Jesus and challenges him with 2 different “If you are the Son of God...”, first to command these stones to be turned to bread, then to jump off the pinnacle of the temple. For that second temptation, the devil takes Jesus to the holy city and places him on the pinnacle of the temple.  For the third, he takes Jesus up on a high mountain and shows him all the kingdoms of the world and offers them to Jesus, if he will only worship the devil.  Jesus rebuffs all three temptations by quoting scripture, then after the third one, commands Satan to depart. 

Luke 4

1 Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit in the wilderness, 2 where for forty days he was tempted by the devil. He ate nothing at all during those days, and when they were over, he was famished. 3 The devil said to him, “If you are the Son of God, command this stone to become a loaf of bread.” 4 Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘One does not live by bread alone.’”

5 Then the devil[a] led him up and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world. 6 And the devil[b] said to him, “To you I will give their glory and all this authority; for it has been given over to me, and I give it to anyone I please. 7 If you, then, will worship me, it will all be yours.” 8 Jesus answered him, “It is written,

‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve only him.’”

9 Then the devil[c] took him to Jerusalem, and placed him on the pinnacle of the temple, saying to him, “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down from here, 10 for it is written,

‘He will command his angels concerning you, to protect you,’

11 and ‘On their hands they will bear you up, so that you will not dash your foot against a stone.’”

12 Jesus answered him, “It is said, ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’” 13 When the devil had finished every test, he departed from him until an opportune time.

Here Luke adapts Matthew to better fit his Gentile audience, and reorganizes the temptations to be a better narrative. The rewordings are slight, but telling.  Matthew says Jesus fasted for 40 days and 40 nights, Luke says he ate nothing at all during those days. This would have been more clear to non-Jewish readers, as “fasting” meant different things to different groups (and still does- in Ramadan, people don’t eat during the day but eat as much as they wish after dark or before dawn, and this is called fasting). The first temptation is common to both; but Matthew has the devil say to “turns these stones into loaves of bread” whereas Luke has him say “turn this stone into a loaf of bread”. The switch to the singular helped focus the reader to understand the direct link between Jesus being famished from lack of food for 40 days and the temptation to prove to himself that he was the Son of God. But then Luke switches the order of the other two temptations. In Luke’s second temptation, the devil led Jesus “up”, whereas Matthew has him on a very high mountain. From that perch Luke says he showed Jesus all the kingdoms of the world “in an instant”, and his offer to Jesus is much more carefully worded than in Matthew. Matthew has the devil simply say, “ All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me.”  Luke makes it a more credible offer, having the devil say, “To you I will give their glory and all this authority; for it has been given over to me, and I give it to anyone I please. 7 If you, then, will worship me, it will all be yours.” 

The final temptation, according to Luke, was to jump down from the pinnacle of the temple. There is only one wording change: Matthew has the devil take Jesus to the “holy city”, Luke changes it to “Jerusalem” so his audience will be completely clear.  

As to why Luke changed the order of the last two: this is pure speculation.  If he was just copying a source there would have been no need to change the order. So why change it? Perhaps because it was a geographical progression: from the wilderness, to “up” from where he could see all the kingdoms in the world, to Jerusalem, the very center of the of the spiritual/religious world Jesus was to challenge. In any event, the fact that he rewrote the order shows he was doing something other than purely copying. 

The Baptism of Jesus

Mark 1

9 In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10 And just as he was coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens torn apart and the Spirit descending like a dove on him. 11 And a voice came from heaven, “You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased.”

Matthew 3

13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to John at the Jordan, to be baptized by him. 14 John would have prevented him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?” 15 But Jesus answered him, “Let it be so now; for it is proper for us in this way to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he consented. 16 And when Jesus had been baptized, just as he came up from the water, suddenly the heavens were opened to him and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. 17 And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, the Beloved, with whom I am well pleased.”

Matthew takes Mark’s story and adds an explanation why John, the inferior, baptized Jesus, his superior: it was because Jesus commanded him to do so!. Otherwise his editing of Mark is superficial: Mark says Jesus came from Galilee and was baptized, Matthew says Jesus came from Galilee to be baptized.  Mark says “he [Jesus} saw the heavens torn apart”, Matthew says “Suddenly the heavens were opened to him”. 

Luke 3

21 Now when all the people were baptized, and when Jesus also had been baptized and was praying, the heaven was opened, 22 and the Holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven, “You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased."

Luke largely sticks with Mark here, omitting Matthew’s account of the conversation with John in which Jesus instructed John to baptize him. But Luke adds an extraordinary feature: the descent of the Spirit in the form of a dove, alighting on Jesus, didn’t happen immediately, as it did in Mark and Matthew (both have it as he was coming up out of the water).  Rather, in Luke, it happened after all the people and Jesus had been baptized, when Jesus was praying.  Luke depicts Jesus as a Spirit-filled man, a man of prayer. The important events in Jesus’s life happen when he is praying.  Interestingly, what the voice said from heaven may have been different in the original Luke. Some old manuscripts have the voice say, “You are my Son, this day have I begotten you”.  This quote from the Psalms would have been “adoptionist” and probably fits Luke’s outlook. But of course this alternate wording is hard to establish as original. 

In conclusion - for now - these are some of the leading examples where I think Luke ends up with a superior version of a story that appeared in both Mark and Matthew.

Luke's Rewrite of Matthew's Nativity Story

 This item was developed for use in the TBC Sunday School class, and then written up and posted on Bart Ehrman's blog (erhmanblog.org).  I'm cross-posting it here to people in the class - and our extended network - can access and comment on the material.

----

How Luke Rewrote Matthew’s Nativity Story

Dennis J. Folds

The Synoptic Problem is the framework in which scholars debate about the commonalities among the three synoptic gospels: Matthew, Mark, and Luke. A lot of material is in all three, more material is common to two of the three, and the remainder is found in only one. Very little is found only in Mark, but both Matthew and Luke have significant content not found in the other two gospels.  The drastically different nativity stories in Matthew and Luke are often cited as examples.  

Perhaps the most common Synoptic Problem position nowadays is the Two Document Hypothesis, which holds that Mark and a long-lost document called Q were two primary sources that Matthew and Luke used, independently, as they wrote their gospels. A major competitor is the Farrer hypothesis, which posits that Mark wrote first, Matthew used Mark, then Luke used both Matthew and Mark as he wrote. In this post I’ll argue in favor of the Farrer hypothesis. I’ll argue that Luke’s nativity story is directly a rewrite of Matthew’s, in which he altered it significantly, making it a much better story.  Mary and Joseph become much more appealing characters, at least to the Gentile world. 

I gather from Luke’s introduction that he was familiar with “many” other attempts to write an orderly account, but he thought he could do better.  Much better.  Throughout Luke we find triple tradition material (i.e., Mark, Matthew, and Luke) and double tradition material (Matthew and Luke, but not Mark), in which Luke improves the stories both in narrative and in appeal to the non-Jewish world. Moreover, much of the material that is only found in Luke is exceptionally well-written narrative.  For example, the parables found only in Luke tend to be lengthy, with a well-developed plot, and a complex message.  The big three are only found in Luke: Prodigal Son, Good Samaritan, and Rich Man and Lazarus. 

Before I address his rewrite of the nativity story, I’ll point out the most significant rewrite in his gospel: the crucifixion story.  The crucifixion story as told by Luke is the only one in which Jesus behaves in a noble manner.  In Mark, he suffers and dies, and just utters one thing, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” This is an anguished cry, perhaps of defeat.  Matthew makes some modifications but retains just the one saying on the cross.  In contrast, Luke has Jesus take time while being led to the cross to comfort the grieving women along the way. He prays, “Father, forgive them, they know not what they do,” as he is being nailed to the cross.  In both Mark and Matthew, the two thieves on either side of Jesus mock and taunt him, but in Luke, one of them says something to the effect that Jesus probably didn’t deserve to be put to death.  Jesus then has a forgiving interchange with him, and promises that, “This day, you will be with me in paradise.”  So, in Luke, Jesus behaves as a great man should in the face of death.  There is no anguished cry of defeat. He is noble and gracious. 

Now for the nativity story: Matthew launches into “now the birth of Jesus happened this way:” and proceeds to narrate a few events, peppered with claims of how those events fulfilled Jewish prophecies.  When we read those actual prophecies, none of Matthew’s claims are straightforward readings of the prophecies.  If an interested reader goes back and looks at those prophecies, it seems that Matthew really stretches to make them fit the events surrounding Jesus’s birth. Maybe, to the Jewish audience, these hidden meanings are treasured. But to the broader readership, they are unconvincing. Luke leaves all that stuff out.  But he takes Matthew’s events and turns them into a well-written, integrated story.  

1. Matthew says that Joseph was engaged to Mary, and before they came together, she was found to be of child “of the Holy Spirit.” Wow!  This is something that never happened before.  How could that happen? How did that happen?  So, Luke writes the story of how that happened.  It started with the angel Gabriel appearing to Mary and telling her what was going to happen.  Mary questions how it could be, and Gabriel explains how it will be. The Holy Spirit is going to “overshadow” her and cause her to become pregnant.  In a way, it is a very sexual image (though not prurient).  And Mary agrees to it. 

2. In Matthew, Joseph is inclined to divorce Mary but does not, after a dream. He marries her and somehow they are in Bethlehem when the child is born. To Luke, Joseph’s abandoned thought of divorcing Mary adds nothing to the story, so he drops it. But how did they get to Bethlehem when everyone knew they were from Nazareth? Luke’s story of how that happened became, perhaps, the most widely read story in history.  He invented a census in which everyone was required to go to their “own city” and register for the property tax.  (He did not say people went to the cities of their ancestors, but to their own city.) He explains that Joseph had to go to Bethlehem to register, because, by inference, he had property there.  In describing this census of the “whole world” he refers to the census taken by Quirinius, about 10 years later, which led to widespread revolt.  But in Luke’s story, Joseph is a compliant subject of Rome, doing what the emperor ordered. So that’s how Joseph, with his pregnant fiancé, came to be in Bethlehem. Makes sense, doesn’t it? 

3. In Matthew, Jesus’s birth is heralded by the appearance of a star, the significance of which was perceived only by a few magi from Persia.  At first, the best they can do is come to Jerusalem and ask around. Somehow, they get audience with Herod the Great, who brings in some consultants, who tell them the child would be born in Bethlehem. The star reappears somehow and leads them to the house where the child is found.  They bring grand gifts for him, then leave and skedaddle out of town, telling no one what they had found.  What a dumb story! Luke rewrites it.  First, in the ancient world, the fixed stars were widely thought to be divine beings of some sort, angels you might say, who took their journey across the night sky.  The five visible planets were associated with gods. (In Revelation, when there is war in heaven between Satan’s angels and Michael’s angels, when Michael prevails, a third of the stars fall from the sky.) In Luke’s telling, Matthew’s star of Bethlehem becomes the angel of the Lord, who appears to some shepherds near where the child is born. And in plain Aramaic, the angel told the shepherds what had happened, and how to find the child.  The angel was then joined by a big group of other angels/stars, the heavenly host, singing praises.  No consultants needed. The shepherds go and find the child just as the angel said, and they went away and told everybody.  This is a much better story.  And it also transforms the special visitors who see the child from esoteric Persian magi to common shepherds. The child is born in an humble setting, laid in a manger, and visited by shepherds.  This is a great improvement. 

4. Matthew has Joseph take Mary and the baby and flee to Egypt. Luke has Joseph take Mary and the baby straight into Jerusalem to do everything the Jewish law required.  Not only were Joseph and Mary compliant Roman subjects, they were also compliant adherents to the Jewish religion. These were good folks, nothing to fear here. 

5. Rather than validate the specialness of the birth of Jesus with obscure interpretations of Jewish prophecies, as Matthew did, Luke has the birth validated by two Spirit-filled elders there in the temple, both of whom were awaiting the appearance of this special child.  Both Simeon and Anna recognize the child as the Lord’s chosen one, and proclaimed that recognition to everyone around. 

Luke isn’t trying to write “history” in the documentary sense.  He is writing the story of a man of faith, a man of prayer, a Spirit-led man who was obedient to the very end, even in a tragic death. He was vindicated when God raised him from the dead. The other attempts to tell his story were inadequate, so Luke improved on them.  In modern terms, Luke wasn’t trying to write a documentary of the life of Jesus of Nazareth; he was writing the screenplay for a blockbuster movie. He writes word-for-word dialog between angels and humans.  He gives us a quick scene of Jesus at age 12, asking questions in the Temple and impressing the scribes there. Luke’s Jesus can read and write, and teaches his disciples what the scriptures mean. 

Luke was not a graduate student writing his thesis, being careful to not go beyond “sources” he trusted nor “traditions” to which he had access. Rather, he was a skilled writer who, in fact, wrote the greatest story ever told. 

Open Thread

This thread is for anything you want to bring up - I'll leave it open so if you think of something during the week you want to post about, you can go ahead and add it as a comment on this thread.