Minor characters | Douglas Wilhelm Hard

Here we will discuss some of the characters apart from the disciples, Paul, John the Baptist and Jesus that appear in Christian scriptures:

In each case, we look at all verses associated with those individuals, and in so many cases, it is very clear that the gospels do not agree, and indeed contradict each other. This will be be followed up with a summary. In one case, an apologist unable to respond to the obvious contradictions by saying "It doesn’t bother me in the least."

mary-magdalene

Mary Magdalene

For someone so popular, there is very little mention of Mary Magdalene.

Mark

Starting in Mark 15:40-41, we have

There were also women looking on from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome, who followed him when he was in Galilee and ministered to him, and there were many other women who had come up with him to Jerusalem.

In Mark 15:47, we have

Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where the body was laid.

Finally, in Mark 16:1-8, we have:

When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him. And very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen, they went to the tomb.

They had been saying to one another, “Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance to the tomb?”

When they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had already been rolled back.

As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.

But he said to them, “Do not be alarmed; you are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has been raised; he is not here. Look, there is the place they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him, just as he told you.”

So they went out and fled from the tomb, for terror and amazement had seized them, and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

Matthew

Matthew also only mentions her at the execution and resurrection; so at the execution, Matthew 27:55-56 mentions:

Many women were also there, looking on from a distance; they had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him. Among them were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.

Watching Jesus's tomb be sealed, in Matthew 27:61, it says:

Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were there, sitting opposite the tomb.

The "other" Mary, I assume, is the mother of James and Joseph. Finally, at the resurrection, in Matthew 28:1-10, we have:

After the Sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb.

And suddenly there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord, descending from heaven, came and rolled back the stone and sat on it...

But the angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus who was crucified. He is not here, for he has been raised, as he said. Come, see the place where he lay. Then go quickly and tell his disciples, ‘He has been raised from the dead, and indeed he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him.’ This is my message for you.”

So they left the tomb quickly with fear and great joy and ran to tell his disciples.

Suddenly Jesus met them and said, “Greetings!” And they came to him, took hold of his feet, and worshiped him.

Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid; go and tell my brothers and sisters to go to Galilee; there they will see me.”

Luke

The author of Luke finally places Mary Magdalene earlier, with some context, in Luke 8:1-3, where it says:

Soon afterward he went on through one town and village after another, proclaiming and bringing the good news of the kingdom of God. The twelve were with him, as well as some women who had been cured of evil spirits and infirmities: Mary, called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, and Joanna, the wife of Herod’s steward Chuza, and Susanna, and many others, who ministered to them out of their own resources.

Seven demons, and yet, today, we can hardly find even one person with a single demon in that person's self. One would think, also, that seven demons would be much more usefully applied if they possessed seven different people and not just one. After this, Mary Magdalene simply appears at the execution and resurrection, in Luke 23:49, although Mary Magdalene is no longer explicitly identified:

But all his acquaintances, including the women who had followed him from Galilee, stood at a distance watching these things.

Also in Luke 23:55-56:

The women who had come with him from Galilee followed, and they saw the tomb and how his body was laid. Then they returned and prepared spices and ointments.

Finally, in Luke 24:1-11, it says:

But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they went to the tomb, taking the spices that they had prepared.

They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they went in they did not find the body.

While they were perplexed about this, suddenly two men in dazzling clothes stood beside them. The women were terrified and bowed their faces to the ground,

but the men said to them, “Why do you look for the living among the dead? He is not here but has risen. Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee, that the Son of Man must be handed over to the hands of sinners and be crucified and on the third day rise again.”

Then they remembered his words, and returning from the tomb they told all this to the eleven and to all the rest.

Now it was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the other women with them who told this to the apostles.

But these words seemed to them an idle tale, and they did not believe them.

The narrative that Mary Magdalene was possessed by seven demons does appear in Mark, but only in the longer ending, one that does not appear in the oldest and most reliable manuscripts, and thus, was likely added afterwards.

John

In the gospel of John, the women are within earshot, as recorded in John 19:25-27 it says:

Meanwhile, standing near the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.

When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing beside her, he said to his mother, “Woman, here is your son.”

Then he said to the disciple, “Here is your mother.”

And from that hour the disciple took her into his own home.

Following this, Jesus dies. The synoptic gospels all say that "from a distance" or "stood at a distance." Matthew and Mark mention other people close enough to mock Jesus, but none of the synoptic gospels mention that Mary Magdalene and Jesus's mother Mary were there at the foot of the cross close enough to have Jesus speak to them. The author of John has them close enough that Jesus can, while still alive, speak to his mother, and there is no suggestion that the women moved away prior to his death.

There is no mention in the gospel of John of women at the burial, but then at the resurrection, in John 20:1-18, we have:

Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the tomb.

So she ran and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him.”

Then Peter and the other disciple set out and went toward the tomb. The two were running together, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first.

He bent down to look in and saw the linen wrappings lying there, but he did not go in.

Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb. He saw the linen wrappings lying there, and the cloth that had been on Jesus’s head, not lying with the linen wrappings but rolled up in a place by itself.

Then the other disciple, who reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed, for as yet they did not understand the scripture, that he must rise from the dead. Then the disciples returned to their homes.

But Mary stood weeping outside the tomb. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb, and she saw two angels in white sitting where the body of Jesus had been lying, one at the head and the other at the feet.

They said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping?”

She said to them, “They have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him.”

When she had said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not know that it was Jesus.

Jesus said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you looking for?”

Supposing him to be the gardener, she said to him, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away.”

Jesus said to her, “Mary!”

She turned and said to him in Hebrew, “Rabbouni!” (which means Teacher).

Jesus said to her, “Do not touch me, because I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’ ”

Mary Magdalene went and announced to the disciples, “I have seen the Lord,” and she told them that he had said these things to her.

That's it for Mary Magdalene. Once again, the four gospels cannot keep a consistent story:

In the synoptic gospels, there is no mention of Jesus talking to women during his execution, and the only mention of Mary Magdalene and other women is that they were watching at a distance; there is certainly no suggestion that they were initially at the foot of the cross and only later moved to a distance, and indeed, if you were right there watching Jesus die, why would you then move to a distance just to see his lifeless body hang there? In the gospel of John, while Jesus is still alive, he is talking to both his mother who is in the presence of other women including Mary Magdalene as well as the disciple who Jesus loved; only then does Jesus die.
In Mark and Luke, Jesus does not appear to Mary Magdalene after his resurrection. Mary is only spoken to by a young man in Mark or two angels in Luke. In Matthew, one angel speaks to Mary, saying the same that is said in Matthew and Mark, but then Jesus also appears to her and her compatriots and they immediately recognize him and worship him. In John, Mary does not go into the tomb, there is no mention of any angel or young man speaking to her (instead, Simon Peter and the disciple Jesus loved are there), and Jesus speaks to Mary Magdalene directly, but she does not immediately recognize him.
In Mark, the women say nothing, in Matthew, the women tell the disciples what they were told and the disciples believed them, while in Luke the women tell the disciples who do not believe them. In John, it says Mary told the disciples, but it is not clear if they believed her or not.

That's it. She does appear in subsequent writings such as Dialogue of the Savior, Pistis Sophia (The Wisdom of Faith), and the gospels of Thomas, Philip and Mary.

Incidentally, as an aside, demon possession is almost certainly not an actual occurrance, and demon possession was the description given to those with mental health issues. As most mental health issues lie on a spectrum, from mild to severe, no doubt the "number" of demons possessing someone is proportional to the severity of the apparent symptoms. The gospel of Matthew has Jesus giving an excellent description that justifies why persons with mental health issues may recover, but then relapse into their previous state and perhaps, as the illness progresses, becomes even more severe, so in Matthew 12:43-45, it says:

“When the unclean spirit has gone out of a person, it wanders through waterless regions looking for a resting place, but it finds none.

Then it says, ‘I will return to my house from which I came.’

When it returns, it finds it empty, swept, and put in order.

Then it goes and brings along seven other spirits more evil than itself, and

they enter and live there, and the last state of that person is worse than the first.

So will it be also with this evil generation.”

Such excellent medical advice from Yahweh himself who designed us to be this way.

Martha, Mary and Lazarus

Both Luke and John refer to Martha, Mary and Lazarus, but in Luke, Lazarus is identified separately from Mary and Martha, while in John these three are all siblings. In both cases, however, Lazarus dies, Martha does the work, and Mary is at Jesus's feet.

In Luke 10:38-42, we have

Now as they went on their way, he entered a certain village where a woman named Martha welcomed him.

She had a sister named Mary, who sat at Jesus’s feet and listened to what he was saying.

But Martha was distracted by her many tasks, so she came to him and asked, “Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me to do all the work by myself? Tell her, then, to help me.”

But the Lord answered her, “Martha, Martha, you are worried and distracted by many things, but few things are needed—indeed only one. Mary has chosen the better part, which will not be taken away from her.”

In Luke 16:19-31, we have

“There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day.

And at his gate lay a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, who longed to satisfy his hunger with what fell from the rich man’s table; even the dogs would come and lick his sores.

The poor man died and was carried away by the angels to be with Abraham.

The rich man also died and was buried. In Hades, where he was being tormented, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far away with Lazarus by his side. He called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in agony in these flames.’

But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that during your lifetime you received your good things and Lazarus in like manner evil things, but now he is comforted here, and you are in agony. Besides all this, between you and us a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who might want to pass from here to you cannot do so, and no one can cross from there to us.’

He said, ‘Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father’s house—for I have five brothers—that he may warn them, so that they will not also come into this place of torment.’

Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the prophets; they should listen to them.’

He said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’

[Abraham] said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’ ”

The author of Luke does not suggest that there is any relationship between these Lazarus and these two sisters; however, there is no mention of three siblings by these three names, and none of these names are mentioned in either Mark or Matthew.

In John 10:40-42, we have the setting where Jesus was in Jerusalem, but then escapes those who tried to stone him, so

He went away again across the Jordan to the place where John had been baptizing earlier, and he remained there. Many came to him, and they were saying, “John performed no sign, but everything that John said about this man was true.” And many believed in him there.

Thus, while Jesus is here, the narrative in John 11:1-44 continues in Bethany, close to Jerusalem:

Now a certain man was ill, Lazarus of Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha.

Mary was the one who anointed the Lord with perfume and wiped his feet with her hair; her brother Lazarus was ill.

So the sisters sent a message to Jesus, “Lord, he whom you love is ill.”

But when Jesus heard it, he said, “This illness does not lead to death; rather, it is for God’s glory, so that the Son of God may be glorified through it.”

Accordingly, though Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus, after having heard that Lazarus was ill, he stayed two days longer in the place where he was.

Then after this he said to the disciples, “Let us go to Judea again.”

The disciples said to him, “Rabbi, the Jews were just now trying to stone you, and are you going there again?”

Jesus answered, “Are there not twelve hours of daylight? Those who walk during the day do not stumble because they see the light of this world. But those who walk at night stumble because the light is not in them.”

After saying this, he told them, “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep, but I am going there to awaken him.”

The disciples said to him, “Lord, if he has fallen asleep, he will be all right.”

Jesus, however, had been speaking about his death, but they thought that he was referring merely to sleep.

Then Jesus told them plainly, “Lazarus is dead. For your sake I am glad I was not there, so that you may believe. But let us go to him.”

Thomas, who was called the Twin, said to his fellow disciples, “Let us also go, that we may die with him.”

When Jesus arrived, he found that Lazarus had already been in the tomb four days.

Now Bethany was near Jerusalem, some two miles away, and many of the Jews had come to Martha and Mary to console them about their brother.

When Martha heard that Jesus was coming, she went and met him, while Mary stayed at home.

Martha said to Jesus, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died. But even now I know that God will give you whatever you ask of him.”

Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise again.”

Martha said to him, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day.”

Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Those who believe in me, even though they die, will live, and everyone who lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?”

She said to him, “Yes, Lord, I believe that you are the Messiah, the Son of God, the one coming into the world.”

When she had said this, she went back and called her sister Mary and told her privately, “The Teacher is here and is calling for you.”

And when she heard it, she got up quickly and went to him.

Now Jesus had not yet come to the village but was still at the place where Martha had met him.

The Jews who were with her in the house consoling her saw Mary get up quickly and go out. They followed her because they thought that she was going to the tomb to weep there.

When Mary came where Jesus was and saw him, she knelt at his feet and said to him, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died.”

When Jesus saw her weeping and the Jews who came with her also weeping, he was greatly disturbed in spirit and deeply moved.

He said, “Where have you laid him?”

They said to him, “Lord, come and see.”

Jesus began to weep.

So the Jews said, “See how he loved him!”

But some of them said, “Could not he who opened the eyes of the blind man have kept this man from dying?”

Then Jesus, again greatly disturbed, came to the tomb. It was a cave, and a stone was lying against it.

Jesus said, “Take away the stone.”

Martha, the sister of the dead man, said to him, “Lord, already there is a stench because he has been dead four days.”

Jesus said to her, “Did I not tell you that if you believed you would see the glory of God?”

So they took away the stone.

And Jesus looked upward and said, “Father, I thank you for having heard me. I knew that you always hear me, but I have said this for the sake of the crowd standing here, so that they may believe that you sent me.”

When he had said this, he cried with a loud voice, “Lazarus, come out!”

The dead man came out, his hands and feet bound with strips of cloth and his face wrapped in a cloth.

Jesus said to them, “Unbind him, and let him go.”

If Jesus is Yahweh, and Jesus knew before he came to Earth that Lazarus would die and that he would resurrect him, why is he disturbed, and why is he weeping? One wonders, also, why such an all-knowing being would have to ask where Lazarus was buried.

The publicity surrounding this resurrection seem to have gotten the ire of the chief priests, so in John 11:54 it says

Jesus therefore no longer walked about openly among the Jews but went from there to a town called Ephraim in the region near the wilderness, and he remained there with the disciples.

Jesus however returns to Jerusalem, stopping at Bethany in John 12:1-11:

Six days before the Passover Jesus came to Bethany, the home of Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead.

There they gave a dinner for him. Martha served, and Lazarus was one of those reclining with him.

Mary took a pound of costly perfume made of pure nard, anointed Jesus’s feet, and wiped them with her hair.

The house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume.

But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples (the one who was about to betray him), said, “Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii and the money given to the poor?” (He said this not because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; he kept the common purse and used to steal what was put into it.)

Jesus said, “Leave her alone. She bought it so that she might keep it for the day of my burial. You always have the poor with you, but you do not always have me.”

When the great crowd of the Jews learned that he was there, they came not only because of Jesus but also to see Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead. So the chief priests planned to put Lazarus to death as well, since it was on account of him that many of the Jews were deserting and were believing in Jesus.

It seems that Jesus stayed the night in Bethany with his friends. In the synoptic gospels, however, when Jesus goes to Jerusalem, he only stops in Bethany to retrieve a donkey (or two) for Jesus to sit on. There is no visit to friends, nor does Jesus and his disciples stay there the night. There, most certainly, is no mention of someone who Jesus loved, not any mention of this person's sisters.

martha-mary-and-lazarus

Simon the Leper or Pharisee?

Just like the names Martha and Mary, together with Lazarus, appear in different contexts in Luke and John (associated with the anointing of Jesus in the gospel of John), Simon is a name that is also attached to the anointing of Jesus, but now in Mark, Matthew and Luke, but again, in different contexts.

In Mark 14:3, it says:

While he was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at the table, a woman came with an alabaster jar of very costly ointment of nard, and she broke open the jar and poured the ointment on his head.

In Matthew 26:6-7, it says:

Now while Jesus was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, a woman came to him with an alabaster jar of very costly ointment, and she poured it on his head as he sat at the table.

However, in Luke, the story of the anointing does not happen in Jerusalem after the triumphal entry, but rather much previous at a non-descript location almost certainly somewhere in Galilee, and yet it is still in the home of Simon, only now, it is Simon the Pharisee, for in Luke 7:36-37 it says:

One of the Pharisees asked Jesus to eat with him, and when he went into the Pharisee’s house he reclined to dine. And a woman in the city who was a sinner, having learned that he was eating in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster jar of ointment.

In Luke 7:40, the name of this Pharisee is given:

Jesus spoke up and said to him, “Simon, I have something to say to you.”

In what are likely the two earliest gospels, Jesus is anointed at the home of Simon the leper, while in the third gospel to be written, Jesus is anointed at the home of Simon the Pharisee, and Jesus as interactions with Martha and Mary, while a story of the death of Lazarus is told. Finally, in what is certainly the last gospel to be written, Jesus is anointed in the home of Martha, Mary and Lazarus, the last of whom had previously died and been resurrected by Jesus. Notice how the home of Simon the leper was in Bethany, the same location as the home of Lazarus, Martha and Mary.

simon-the-leper-or-phrisee

Simon of Cyrene

This is the individual who carried the cross for Jesus. He is identified as coming from Cyrene, a Greek colony in modern-day Libya between Benghazi and Tobruk.

In Mark 15:21-24, it says:

They compelled a passer-by, who was coming in from the country, to carry his cross; it was Simon of Cyrene, the father of Alexander and Rufus. Then they brought Jesus to the place called Golgotha (which means Place of a Skull). And they offered him wine mixed with myrrh, but he did not take it. And they crucified him ...

The name Rufus appears once more in Romans 16:13, but that person is associated with his mother. Individuals by the name of Alexander are mentioned in Acts 19, 1 Timothy 1 and 2 Timothy 4, but there is no suggestion these are the Alexander mentioned here.

In Matthew 27:32-35, it says:

As they went out, they came upon a man from Cyrene named Simon; they compelled this man to carry his cross. And when they came to a place called Golgotha (which means Place of a Skull), they offered him wine to drink, mixed with gall, but when he tasted it, he would not drink it. And when they had crucified him, ...

The names of the sons are left out.

In Luke 23:26-33, it describes the same scenario:

As they led him away, they seized a man, Simon of Cyrene, who was coming from the country, and they laid the cross on him and made him carry it behind Jesus. ... When they came to the place that is called The Skull, they crucified Jesus there with the criminals, one on his right and one on his left.

They leave out the wine mixed with myrrh or gall, which are also not the same substance. The author of Luke, however, does emphasize that Simon was forced to follow Jesus. Jesus, however, does much more in the gospel of Luke:

As they led him away, they seized a man, Simon of Cyrene, who was coming from the country, and they laid the cross on him and made him carry it behind Jesus.

A great number of the people followed him, and among them were women who were beating their breasts and wailing for him.

But Jesus turned to them and said, “Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me, but weep for yourselves and for your children. For the days are surely coming when they will say, ‘Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bore, and the breasts that never nursed.’ Then they will begin to say to the mountains, ‘Fall on us,’ and to the hills, ‘Cover us.’ For if they do this when the wood is green, what will happen when it is dry?”

Two others also, who were criminals, were led away to be put to death with him.

When they came to the place that is called The Skull, they crucified Jesus there with the criminals, one on his right and one on his left.

I find it interesting that the author of Luke determined that the Roman soldiers leading Jesus to his execution would allow him to make small talk with those around him.

In John, Simon is left out, for in John 19:16-18, it says:

Then [Pilate} handed him over to them to be crucified.

So they took Jesus, and carrying the cross by himself he went out to what is called the Place of the Skull, which in Hebrew is called Golgotha. There they crucified him and with him two others, one on either side, with Jesus between them.

There is no diatribe while Jesus is walking to his place of execution, and there is no mention of Simon: Jesus is carrying the cross himself.

simon-of-cyrene

The two rebels

Jesus was almost certainly executed with two others convicted of sedition, for in Mark 15:27, it says:

And with him they crucified two rebels, one on his right and one on his left.

Then in Mark 15:32, it continues:

Those who were crucified with him also taunted him.

In Matthew, he is copying essentially verbatim from Mark, for in Matthew 27:38, it says:

Then two rebels were crucified with him, one on his right and one on his left.

Later, the author of Matthew continues to copy from Mark in Matthew 27:44, it says:

The rebels who were crucified with him also taunted him in the same way.

The phrase “the same way” refers to the previous verses, Matthew 27:39-43, which say:

Those who passed by derided him, shaking their heads and saying, “You who would destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself! If you are the Son of God, come down from the cross.”

In the same way the chief priests also, along with the scribes and elders, were mocking him, saying, “He saved others; he cannot save himself. He is the King of Israel; let him come down from the cross now, and we will believe in him. He trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he wants to, for he said, ‘I am God’s Son.’ ”

In Luke, it starts in a similar manner, for in Luke 23:32-33, it says:

Two others also, who were criminals, were led away to be put to death with him. When they came to the place that is called The Skull, they crucified Jesus there with the criminals, one on his right and one on his left.

Luke is copying from Mark, and note the repetition of the phrase “one on his right and one on his left” in all three gospels. The author, however, decides to deviate from Mark, for in Luke 23:39-43, there is a completely different story:

One of the criminals who were hanged there kept deriding [Jesus] and saying, “Are you not the Messiah? Save yourself and us!”

But the other rebuked him, saying, “Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? And we indeed have been condemned justly, for we are getting what we deserve for our deeds, but this man has done nothing wrong.”

Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come in your kingdom.”

He replied, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”

Crucifixion is the punishment for sedition, so Mark and Matthew were correct: these two were, like Jesus, rebels. What rebel would say “we indeed have been condemned justly, for we are getting what we deserve for our deeds.” They were, like many other Judeans, fighting against the Roman overlords. The author of Luke, however, likely added this fanciful statement so that he could have that rebel then say “this man has done nothing wrong,” emphasizing the innocence of Jesus. After all, being a follower of someone who was executed for sedition is not likely to see one treated well by that same polity that executed for sedition the one who is being followed.

The author of John, not having a text to copy from, describes the execution slightly differently, for in John 19:18, it says:

There they crucified him and with him two others, one on either side, with Jesus between them.

Note, it is not the “one on his right and one on his left” that appears in all three synoptic gospels. The author of John does not mention anyone mocking or taunting Jesus, and instead, has Jesus's closest women followers and the disciple who Jesus loved at the foot of the cross. The only subsequent reference to the two rebels relate to their accelerated death described in John 19:31-33:

Since it was the day of Preparation, the Jews did not want the bodies left on the cross during the Sabbath, especially because that Sabbath was a day of great solemnity. So they asked Pilate to have the legs of the crucified men broken and the bodies removed.

Then the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first and of the other who had been crucified with him.

But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs.

The author of John claims that this is to fulfill prophesy, but the verse referred to in Psalms 34:20 hardly refers to one person or the Messiah, but rather that verse, and many around it, refer to all those who are righteous, and it says:

Many are the afflictions of the righteous, but the Lord rescues them from them all.
He keeps all their bones; not one of them will be broken.

Thus, the author of John has these rebels further tortured before they die due to a misinterpretation of a psalm of David, although, perhaps the death was quicker.

Thus, Mark and Matthew have both rebels taunting Jesus, while Luke has only one taunting Jesus while the other repents in an act of subjugation, and finally, the author of John says nothing of anything these rebels said, only having their legs broken to speed their deaths so that Jesus would be spared this fate.

the-two-rebels

Bar (son of) Timaeus

In Mark 10:46-52, it has this story:

They came to Jericho.

As he and his disciples and a large crowd were leaving Jericho,

Bartimaeus son of Timaeus, a blind beggar, was sitting by the roadside.

When he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to shout out and say, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!”

Many sternly ordered him to be quiet, but he cried out even more loudly, “Son of David, have mercy on me!”

Jesus stood still and said, “Call him here.”

And they called the blind man, saying to him, “Take heart; get up, he is calling you.”

So throwing off his cloak, he sprang up and came to Jesus.

Then Jesus said to him, “What do you want me to do for you?”

The blind man said to him, “My teacher, let me see again.”

Jesus said to him, “Go; your faith has made you well.”

Immediately he regained his sight and followed him on the way.

Bartimaeus has the distinction of being the only person healed by Jesus whose name is given by the author of Mark.

The author of Matthew tells a similar story in Matthew 20:29-34:

As they were leaving Jericho, a large crowd followed him.

There were two blind men sitting by the roadside.

When they heard that Jesus was passing by, they shouted, “Lord, have mercy on us, Son of David!”

The crowd sternly ordered them to be quiet, but they shouted even more loudly, “Have mercy on us, Lord, Son of David!”

Jesus stood still and called them, saying, “What do you want me to do for you?”

They said to him, “Lord, let our eyes be opened.”

Moved with compassion, Jesus touched their eyes.

Immediately they regained their sight and followed him.

One need not take too long to see the differences:

Instead of Bartimaeus, the author of Matthew has two unnamed blind beggars.
Three times Jesus is called "Lord," a title not used by Bartimaeus in Mark; although some older manuscripts do not include the first use of the word "Lord".
Instead of saying that they are being cured on account of their faith (as Jesus said to Bartimaeus in Mark), Jesus touches their eyes while saying nothing.

And yet, the author of Matthew had access to the text of Mark.

Finally, the author of Luke tells this story, too, in Luke 18:35-43:

As he approached Jericho,

a blind man was sitting by the roadside begging.

When he heard a crowd going by, he asked what was happening.

They told him, “Jesus of Nazareth is passing by.” Then he shouted, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!”

Those who were in front sternly ordered him to be quiet, but he shouted even more loudly, “Son of David, have mercy on me!”

Jesus stood still and ordered the man to be brought to him, and

when he came near, he asked him, “What do you want me to do for you?”

He said, “Lord, let me see again.”

Jesus said to him, “Receive your sight; your faith has saved you.”

Immediately he regained his sight and followed him, glorifying God, and

all the people, when they saw it, praised God.

As with Mark, the author of Luke indicates that it was the beggar's faith that healed him, only now you will notice that these events occurred while Jesus was entering Jericho, not after he was leaving the city. And yet, the author of Luke, also, had access to the text of Mark. Why the author of Luke changed the story to occur during Jesus's entrance to the city instead of while Jesus was leaving the city, and why the author of Matthew has two blind beggars and not just one and has Jesus touch their eyes instead of saying something is beyond me. Neither the author of Matthew nor Luke mention the name Bartimaeus.

There is one possible justification for the change made by the author of Luke. Note that in Mark, there is just a single leading sentence indicating that Jesus and his disciples were coming to Jericho. Nothing is said about anything that actually happened in the city, and immediately they now leave the city, only now followed by a crowd.

They came to Jericho.

As he and his disciples and a large crowd were leaving Jericho,

Bartimaeus son of Timaeus, a blind beggar, was sitting by the roadside.

As he approached Jericho,

a blind man was sitting by the roadside begging.

The author of Luke seems to have skipped a few verses and paraphrased the last sentence, accidentally leaving out the transition from entering to leaving the city. The author clearly did not realize what he did, for he still has a large crowd about Jesus and his disciples, which makes sense if this crowd was following them out of the city, but the author of now has this crowd about Jesus even before he enters the city. Unfortunately, such a mistake in copying does not suggest inerrancy.

As for apologetics, Matt Slick claims that if two were healed, then one was healed, so this is not a contradiction, but he says nothing about the change in setting, from after leaving the city to before entering it. Joe McKeever is even more funny, for like others, they talk away other obvious contradictions, but when posed with one that he cannot explain, he proceeds with:

What are we to make of this?

1) Short answer: nothing. It doesn’t bother me in the least. Sorry if my non-concern is of concern to readers.

My commentaries simply say, “There is no way to account for the discrepancies,” and go on to other matters. That suits me just fine. This, for most of us, is a non-issue.

If you cannot talk your way around the contradiction, even with a fantastic story, just ignore it and say that it is of no significance.

If you want to see clear plagiarism, here are all three in Koine Greek. Rather than copying each of the passages and highlighting the similarities, instead, this splits the narrative into parallel thoughts, with Mark in red, Matthew in blue, and Luke in black. Common words (taking into account number, as Matthew has two beggars) are in bold, while distinct words are subdued. Please note, of course words like "and" and place names are similar, but the similarity goes way beyond what one would expect if each author described the story in their own words. You will note that the words introduced by the authors of Matthew of Luke do not overlap except for Lord (κύριε ). One may claim that some of the phrases are similar because these are recording the words of the speakers; however, in this case, they should be the same, or at least similar: what Jesus said should not be affected by the surrounding context, and while he spoke Aramaic, and this is only a Greek translation, he would have used either the singular or the plural in Aramaic, and hence, the translation should be also either singular or plural and not both.

46 Καὶ ἔρχονται εἰς Ἱερειχώ. καὶ ἐκπορευομένου αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ Ἱερειχὼ καὶ τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ καὶ ὄχλου ἱκανοῦ ὁ υἱὸς Τιμαίου Βαρτιμαῖος, τυφλὸς προσαίτης, ἐκάθητο παρὰ τὴν ὁδόν.
29 Καὶ ἐκπορευομένων αὐτῶν ἀπὸ Ἱερειχὼ ἠκολούθησεν αὐτῷ ὄχλος πολύς. 30 καὶ ἰδοὺ δύο τυφλοὶ καθήμενοι παρὰ τὴν ὁδόν,
35 Ἐγένετο δὲ ἐν τῷ ἐγγίζειν αὐτὸν εἰς Ἱερειχὼ τυφλός τις ἐκάθητο παρὰ τὴν ὁδὸν ἐπαιτῶν. 36 ἀκούσας δὲ ὄχλου διαπορευομένου ἐπυνθάνετο τί εἴη τοῦτο.

47 καὶ ἀκούσας ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ὁ Ναζαρηνός ἐστιν,

ἀκούσαντες ὅτι Ἰησοῦς παράγει,

37 ἀπήγγειλαν δὲ αὐτῷ ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ὁ Ναζωραῖος παρέρχεται.

In Mark and Matthew, the beggar or beggars heard (ἀκούσας or ἀκούσαντες), while in Luke he was told (ἀπήγγειλαν) by the crowd.

ἤρξατο κράζειν καὶ λέγειν· υἱὲ Δαυεὶδ Ἰησοῦ, ἐλέησόν με.
ἔκραξαν λέγοντες· ἐλέησον ἡμᾶς Ἰησοῦ, υἱὲ Δαυείδ.
38 καὶ ἐβόησεν λέγων· Ἰησοῦ υἱὲ Δαυείδ, ἐλέησόν με.

In Matthew, this version does not use the word "Lord" (κύριε ) to address Jesus.

48 καὶ ἐπετίμων αὐτῷ πολλοὶ ἵνα σιωπήσῃ. ὁ δὲ πολλῷ μᾶλλον ἔκραζεν· υἱὲ Δαυείδ, ἐλέησόν με.
31 Ὁ δὲ ὄχλος ἐπετίμησεν αὐτοῖς ἵνα σιωπήσωσιν. οἱ δὲ μεῖζον ἔκραξαν λέγοντες· κύριε ἐλέησον ἡμᾶς, υἱὲ Δαυείδ.
39 Καὶ οἱ προάγοντες ἐπετίμων αὐτῷ ἵνα σιγήσῃ. αὐτὸς δὲ πολλῷ μᾶλλον ἔκραζεν· υἱὲ Δαυείδ, ἐλέησόν με.

49 καὶ στὰς ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν· φωνήσατε αὐτόν.

n/a

40 Σταθεὶς δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐκέλευσεν αὐτὸν ἀχθῆναι πρὸς αὐτόν.

Mark has Jesus tell the crowd to bring him, while Luke orders the beggar be brought to him.

καὶ φωνοῦσιν τὸν τυφλὸν λέγοντες αὐτῷ· θάρσει, ἔγειρε, φωνεῖ σε. 50 ὁ δὲ ἀποβαλὼν τὸ ἱμάτιον αὐτοῦ ἀναπηδήσας ἦλθεν πρὸς τὸν Ἰησοῦν.
n/a

n/a

This is where in Mark, the crowd tells Bartimaeus to "take heart" and he throws off his cloak and springs up.

51 καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν· τί σοι θέλεις ποιήσω;
32 Καὶ στὰς ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐφώνησεν αὐτοὺς καὶ εἶπεν· τί θέλετε ποιήσω ὑμῖν;
ἐγγίσαντος δὲ αὐτοῦ ἐπηρώτησεν αὐτόν· 41 τί σοι θέλεις ποιήσω;

ὁ δὲ τυφλὸς εἶπεν αὐτῷ· ῥαββουνί, ἵνα ἀναβλέψω.
33 λέγουσιν αὐτῷ· κύριε, ἵνα ἀνοιγῶσιν οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ ἡμῶν.
ὁ δὲ εἶπεν· κύριε, ἵνα ἀναβλέψω.

In Mark, he addresses Jesus as "Rabbi" (ῥαββουνί), not "Lord".

52 ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτῷ· ὕπαγε, ἡ πίστις σου σέσωκέν σε.
34 σπλαγχνισθεὶς δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἥψατο τῶν ὀμμάτων αὐτῶν,
42 καὶ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτῷ· ἀνάβλεψον· ἡ πίστις σου σέσωκέν σε.

Remember that Matthew has Jesus explicitly touching the eyes of the blind men.

καὶ εὐθὺς ἀνέβλεψεν καὶ ἠκολούθει αὐτῷ ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ.
καὶ εὐθέως ἀνέβλεψαν καὶ ἠκολούθησαν αὐτῷ.
43 καὶ παραχρῆμα ἀνέβλεψεν καὶ ἠκολούθει αὐτῷ δοξάζων τὸν θεόν.

n/a
n/a
καὶ πᾶς ὁ λαὸς ἰδὼν ἔδωκεν αἶνον τῷ θεῷ.

If there was this much overlap in three essays written by three different students, they would be found guilty of plagiarism. Try this some time: have yourself and two of your friends watch the same event, independently write down what you saw, and see if you have this much--or even a small fraction of this much--overlap in your written statements about what you witnessed.

bar-timaeus

Joseph ben Caiaphas

Joseph, the son of Caiaphas, was the high priest at the time of Jesus's execution. All of the gospel authors discuss the actions of and interactions with this individual. Relevant individuals are:

Ananus (or Annas) ben Seth, who was the high priest from 6 CE to 15 CE and was appointed by Quirinius, the governor of Syria who oversaw the transition of Judea from an ethnarch to a Roman province.
Ishmael ben Fabus was high priest from 15 CE to 16 CE.
Eleazar ben Ananus (the Ananus in 1) was high priest from 16 CE to 17 CE.
Simon ben Camithus who was the high priest from 17 CE to 18 CE, and
Joseph ben Caiaphas (married to a daughter of Ananus in 1) who was high priest from 18 CE to 36 CE.

Thus, Ananus was high priest for a decade, and Caiaphas (the son-in-law of Ananus) was high priest for even longer. It seems that Ananus continued to hold significant political power even after being deposed.

Mark

The author of Mark does not name the high priest, but does refer to him in Mark 14:53-65:

They took Jesus to the high priest, and all the chief priests, the elders, and the scribes were assembled.

Peter had followed him at a distance, right into the courtyard of the high priest, and he was sitting with the guards, warming himself at the fire.

Now the chief priests and the whole council were looking for testimony against Jesus to put him to death, but they found none.

For many gave false testimony against him, and their testimony did not agree.

Some stood up and gave false testimony against him, saying, “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.’ ”

But even on this point their testimony did not agree.

Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, “Have you no answer? What is it that they testify against you?”

But he was silent and did not answer.

Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?”

Jesus said, “I am, and ‘you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power’ and ‘coming with the clouds of heaven.’ ”

Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “Why do we still need witnesses? You have heard his blasphemy! What is your decision?”

All of them condemned him as deserving death.

Some began to spit on him, to blindfold him, and to strike him, saying to him,

“Prophesy!”

The guards also took him and beat him.

The very next verse, Mark 15:1 says

As soon as it was morning, the chief priests held a consultation with the elders and scribes and the whole council. They bound Jesus, led him away, and handed him over to Pilate.

Matthew

The High Priest is first mentioned, and mentioned explicitly by name, by the author of Matthew in Matthew 26:3-5:

Then the chief priests and the elders of the people gathered in the courtyard of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas, and they conspired to arrest Jesus by stealth and kill him. But they said, “Not during the festival, or there may be a riot among the people.”

The author then continues in Matthew 26:57-68:

Those who had arrested Jesus took him to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders had gathered.

But Peter was following him at a distance, as far as the courtyard of the high priest, and going inside he sat with the guards in order to see how this would end.

Now the chief priests and the whole council were looking for false testimony against Jesus so that they might put him to death, but they found none, though many false witnesses came forward.

At last two came forward and said, “This fellow said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and to build it in three days.’ ”

The high priest stood up and said, “Have you no answer? What is it that they testify against you?”

But Jesus was silent.

Then the high priest said to him, “I put you under oath before the living God, tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.”

Jesus said to him, “You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “He has blasphemed! Why do we still need witnesses? You have now heard his blasphemy. What do you think?”

They answered, “He deserves death.”

Then they spat in his face and struck him, and some slapped him, saying,

“Prophesy to us, you Messiah! Who is it that struck you?”

Like Mark, the author of Matthew parallels what happened in Matthew 27:1-2:

When morning came, all the chief priests and the elders of the people conferred together against Jesus in order to bring about his death. They bound him, led him away, and handed him over to Pilate the governor.

Luke

The author of Luke first mentions the high priest in his introduction to John the Baptist in Luke 3:1-2:

In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, and Herod was ruler of Galilee, and his brother Philip ruler of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias ruler of Abilene, during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the wilderness.

The author of Luke may be introducing another historical anacronism here: while Ananus clearly continued to hold political power, he was deposed a decade-and-a-half before the 15th year of Tiberius, and Caiaphas was high priest for well over a decade at this point. Interestingly, the author of Luke never refers to Caiaphas as the high priest, as we see below and later in the Book of Acts.

In Luke 22:54, we see what is written in the other gospels, but like Mark:

Then they seized him and led him away, bringing him into the high priest’s house. But Peter was following at a distance.

Humorously, the first statement concerning Jesus's imprisonment in Luke is the last mentioned in Mark and Matthew, for in Luke 22:63-65, immediately after he was arrested at the Garden of Gethsemane, we have:

Now the men who were holding Jesus began to mock him and beat him; they also blindfolded him and kept asking him,

“Prophesy! Who is it who struck you?”

They kept heaping many other insults on him.

Next, in Luke, we have Jesus brought before the assembly in Luke 22:66-71:

When day came, the assembly of the elders of the people, both chief priests and scribes, gathered together, and they brought him to their council.

They said, “If you are the Messiah, tell us.”

He replied, “If I tell you, you will not believe, and if I question you, you will not answer. But from now on the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the power of God.”

All of them asked, “Are you, then, the Son of God?”

He said to them, “You say that I am.”

Then they said, “What further testimony do we need? We have heard it ourselves from his own lips!”

We then have Jesus brought before Pilate in Luke 23:1:

Then the assembly rose as a body and brought Jesus before Pilate.

John

In the gospel of John, the high priest is first mentioned immediately following the resurrection of Lazarus, an event not mentioned in any of the other gospels, where in John 15:45-53:

Many of the Jews, therefore, who had come with Mary and had seen what Jesus did believed in him.

But some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done.

So the chief priests and the Pharisees called a meeting of the council and said, “What are we to do? This man is performing many signs. If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and destroy both our holy place and our nation.”

But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all! You do not understand that it is better for you to have one man die for the people than to have the whole nation destroyed.”

He did not say this on his own, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus was about to die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but to gather into one the dispersed children of God. So from that day on they planned to put him to death.

Caiaphas was high priest for almost two decades, so why the author refers to him being high priest "that year" suggests this author is a little confused. How did the author of John know of this prophesy from this high priest, and more importantly, if Caiaphas actually believed this, would he not have supported Jesus? If this is what he prophesized, and then actively seeks to kill Jesus, this is clearly suggesting that this high priest is explicitly working against the Judean people.

A much easier explanation is that Jesus was a charismatic itinerant apocalyptic preacher from Galilee who was teaching the message of John the Baptist: that the Kingdom of Yahweh was coming soon. Jesus, however, seems to have begun to believe that he himself would usher in this new kingdom, journeyed to Jerusalem, disrupted the Temple activities surrounding the Passover, and had himself anointed. One of his disciples became disillusioned with Jesus's delusions of grandeur and informed the priests of Jesus having had himself anointed, so they turned him over to the Romans for sedition, and the Romans executed him like they do all traitors: they crucified him. There were many rebelling against the Roman occupation of Judea, some openly such as the Zealots, and others advocating more passive resistance, but while Jesus's message was one of repentance to prepare for the coming Kingdom of Yahweh, his interference in the Passover ceremonies put him in conflict with the high priest and Judean authorities in Jerusalem.

Then, in John 18:12-14:

So the soldiers, their officer, and the Jewish police arrested Jesus and bound him.

First they took him to Annas, who was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the high priest that year.

Caiaphas was the one who had advised the Jews that it was better to have one person die for the people.

Next, in John 18:19-24, we have

Then the [former?] high priest [Annas?] questioned Jesus about his disciples and about his teaching.

Jesus answered, “I have spoken openly to the world; I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all the Jews come together. I have said nothing in secret. Why do you ask me? Ask those who heard what I said to them; they know what I said.”

When he had said this, one of the police standing nearby struck Jesus on the face, saying, “Is that how you answer the high priest?”

Jesus answered, “If I have spoken wrongly, testify to the wrong. But if I have spoken rightly, why do you strike me?”

Then Annas sent him bound to Caiaphas the high priest.

As Ananus sent Jesus to Caiphas, it seems that the high priest who questioned Jesus was Ananus; after all, Jesus was taken to Ananus.

Aside: High priests seem to be referred to by their father's name, and the three high priests after Caiaphas were all sons of Ananus (Jonathan, Theophilus and Matthias). Thus, while subsequent references to Ananus may refer to one of these, here it explicitly says that the Ananus being referred to is the father-in-law of Caiaphas, thus referring back to the person who held the high priesthood from 6 CE to 15 CE.

Finally, Jesus is brought before Pilate in John 18:28:

Then they took Jesus from Caiaphas to Pilate’s headquarters. It was early in the morning. They themselves did not enter the headquarters, so as to avoid ritual defilement and to be able to eat the Passover.

This is very important, for in Mark, Matthew, and Luke, Jesus and his disciples ate the Passover meal the evening before the day he was crucified. Here, it is very clear that Jesus was arrested the evening before the Passover meal. The author of John wants Jesus to be executed at the same time that the Passover lambs are sacrificed and prepared for that evening Passover meal. The authors of the gospels cannot even agree on the date of Jesus's execution:

Was it the day after the Passover meal, as in Mark, Matthew and Luke; or
was it in the hours before the Passover meal, as in John?

To be clear, I am using "day" to refer to the modern day starting at midnight. In Judean traditions, the day starts at sunset. The lamb is sacrificed while the sun is shining, so the Passover meal occurs that evening on the next "day."

Thus, even with respect to the events surrounding the high priest, the gospels cannot agree and are horribly confused. The order of events in Mark are as follows:

Jesus had eaten the Passover meal with his disciples, goes to the Garden of Gethsemane, and is arrested.
After his arrest, Jesus is taken to the high priest and the Sanhedrin, while Peter remained outside in the courtyard of the high priest.
During the trial, Jesus is found guilty of blasphemy.
He is held, blindfolded, and struck.
When morning comes, they take Jesus to Pilate.

The order of events in Matthew parallel those in Mark, so the author of Matthew faithfully copied what he was reading in Mark, in some cases, almost verbatim:

δήσαντες τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἀπήνεγκαν καὶ παρέδωκαν Πειλάτῳ

καὶ δήσαντες αὐτὸν ἀπήγαγον καὶ παρέδωκαν Πειλάτῳ τῷ ἡγεμόνι

Mark refers to "Jesus", while Matthew changed this to "him" and appends the words "the governor" after the name Pilate.

The author of Luke, on the other hand, rearranges the events:

Jesus had eaten the Passover meal with his disciples, goes to the Garden of Gethsemane, and is arrested.
After his arrest, Jesus brought to the "house of the high priest", held, blindfolded, and struck.
Only in the morning is Jesus brought on trial before the Sanhedrin.
During the trial, Jesus is found guilty of blasphemy and is taken to Pilate.

The events recorded by the author of John are even more different:

Jesus goes to the Garden of Gethsemane and is arrested.
After his arrest, he is brought Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas.
There, Jesus is questioned by Annas and is struck.
Jesus is then bound and sent to Caiaphas but there is no mention of a trial.
Jesus is taken to Pilate, and the Passover meal is to be eaten that evening.

While the author of Matthew faithfully copied from Mark, the author of Luke changed the order of the events (for example, moving the trial to the morning), and the author of John introduces Annas, the former high priest, and does not even describe a trial. Additionally, the synoptic gospels have Jesus and his disciples eating the Passover meal before his arrest, while in John, the Passover meal is to be eaten the evening after Jesus is turned over to Pilate.

The author of Luke continues to describe the actions and interactions with the high priest in the Book of Acts. In each case, the story's goal is to denigrate the high priest.

In Acts 4:5-6, it says:

The next day their rulers, elders, and scribes assembled in Jerusalem, with Annas the high priest, Caiaphas, John [Jonathan?], and Alexander, and all who were of the high-priestly family.

Recall that Mark did not name the high priest, and the author of Luke did not name the high priest, either, but here we see that same author name Ananus as high priest, and only lists Caiaphas as one of his family. The next high priest was Jonathan ben Ananus (36 CE to 37 CE), but this may be the John referred to as one with Caiaphas and the high priest. Theophilus ben Ananus was high priest from 37 CE to 41 CE. Both of these were sons of Ananus, and hence, may be the "Annas the high priest" referred to above.

Awkward aside: The author of Luke has Jesus was born in 6 CE and has that Jesus was about 30 years old when he began his ministry. The author of Luke says that John the Baptist started in the 15th year of Tiberius, which would be 28 CE; however, Jesus could have been 30 years old in 36 CE, in which case, the author of Luke may actually believe that Jesus's execution was under the rule of the high priest Theophilus ben Ananus, a person who, interestingly enough, is the person to whom the books of Luke and Acts are addressed to. Pilate was governor up until 36 CE. Additionally, given that Caiaphas and John appear to be mentioned next to Annas the high priest, the only name not mentioned is Theophilus, or possibly, the author of Acts was simply relying on incorect dates and names.

Acts 5:17-42 (most of the chapter) deals with an interaction between the apostles and the high priest:

Then the high priest took action; he and all who were with him (that is, the sect of the Sadducees), being filled with jealousy, arrested the apostles and put them in the public prison. But during the night an angel of the Lord opened the prison doors, brought them out, and said, “Go, stand in the temple and tell the people the whole message about this life.” When they heard this, they entered the temple at daybreak and went on with their teaching.

When the high priest and those with him arrived, they called together the council and the whole body of the elders of Israel and sent to the prison to have them brought. But when the temple police went there, they did not find them in the prison, so they returned and reported, “We found the prison securely locked and the guards standing at the doors, but when we opened them we found no one inside.” Now when the captain of the temple and the chief priests heard these words, they were perplexed about them, wondering what might be going on. Then someone arrived and announced, “Look, the men whom you put in prison are standing in the temple and teaching the people!” Then the captain went with the temple police and brought them, but without violence, for they were afraid of being stoned by the people.

When they had brought them, they had them stand before the council. The high priest questioned them, saying, “We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name, yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and you are determined to bring this man’s blood on us.” But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than any human authority. The God of our ancestors raised up Jesus, whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree. God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior that he might give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. And we are witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey him.”

When they heard this, they were enraged and wanted to kill them. But a Pharisee in the council named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, respected by all the people, stood up and ordered the men to be put outside for a short time. Then he said to them, “Fellow Israelites, consider carefully what you propose to do to these men. For some time ago Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody, and a number of men, about four hundred, joined him, but he was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and disappeared. After him Judas the Galilean rose up at the time of the census and got people to follow him; he also perished, and all who followed him were scattered. So in the present case, I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone, because if this plan or this undertaking is of human origin, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them—in that case you may even be found fighting against God!”

They were convinced by him, and when they had called in the apostles, they had them flogged. Then they ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus and let them go. As they left the council, they rejoiced that they were considered worthy to suffer dishonor for the sake of the name. And every day in the temple and at home they did not cease to teach and proclaim Jesus as the Messiah.

The high priest is mentioned again in the stoning of Stephen, in Acts 6:8-15 and Acts 7:

Stephen, full of grace and power, did great wonders and signs among the people. Then some of those who belonged to the synagogue of the Freedmen (as it was called), Cyrenians, Alexandrians, and others of those from Cilicia and Asia, stood up and argued with Stephen. But they could not withstand the wisdom and the Spirit with which he spoke. Then they secretly instigated some men to say, “We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and God.” They stirred up the people as well as the elders and the scribes; then they suddenly confronted him, seized him, and brought him before the council. They set up false witnesses who said, “This man never stops saying things against this holy place and the law, for we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and will change the customs that Moses handed on to us.” And all who sat in the council looked intently at him, and they saw that his face was like the face of an angel.

7 Then the high priest asked him, “Are these things so?” And Stephen replied:

“Brothers and fathers, listen to me. [Long history of the patriarchs...] You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you are forever opposing the Holy Spirit, just as your ancestors used to do. Which of the prophets did your ancestors not persecute? They killed those who foretold the coming of the Righteous One, and now you have become his betrayers and murderers. You are the ones who received the law as ordained by angels, and yet you have not kept it.”

When they heard these things, they became enraged and ground their teeth at Stephen.

But filled with the Holy Spirit, he gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. “Look,” he said, “I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!”

But they covered their ears, and with a loud shout all rushed together against him. Then they dragged him out of the city and began to stone him, and the witnesses laid their coats at the feet of a young man named Saul.

While they were stoning Stephen, he prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.”

Then he knelt down and cried out in a loud voice, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.”

When he had said this, he died.

This introduces Saul, who would later change his name to Paul. Saul then approaches the high priest in Acts 9:1-2:

Meanwhile Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any who belonged to the Way, men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.

After Paul's conversion, he travels to Jerusalem and is arrested at the temple for causing a disturbance, and is held by a Roman tribune, a rank above that of a centurion. When it is told that Paul claims to be a Roman citizen, the tribune puts him in front of the Sanhedrin in Acts 22:30 and 23:1-10:

Since he wanted to find out what Paul was being accused of by the Jews, the next day he released him and ordered the chief priests and the entire council to meet. He brought Paul down and had him stand before them.

While Paul was looking intently at the council he said, “Brothers, up to this day I have lived my life with a clear conscience before God.” Then the high priest Ananias ordered those standing near him to strike him on the mouth. At this Paul said to him, “God will strike you, you whitewashed wall! Are you sitting there to judge me according to the law, and yet in violation of the law you order me to be struck?” Those standing nearby said, “Do you dare to insult God’s high priest?” And Paul said, “I did not realize, brothers, that he was high priest, for it is written, ‘You shall not speak evil of a leader of your people.’ ”

When Paul noticed that some were Sadducees and others were Pharisees, he called out in the council, “Brothers, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees. I am on trial concerning the hope of the resurrection of the dead.” When he said this, a dissension began between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided. (The Sadducees say that there is no resurrection or angel or spirit, but the Pharisees acknowledge all three.) Then a great clamor arose, and certain scribes of the Pharisees’ group stood up and contended, “We find nothing wrong with this man. What if a spirit or an angel has spoken to him?” When the dissension became violent, the tribune, fearing that they would tear Paul to pieces, ordered the soldiers to go down, take him by force, and bring him into the barracks.

This drama with Paul continues with Acts 24:1-9, but now the high preist is named:

Five days later the high priest Ananias came down with some elders and an attorney, a certain Tertullus, and they reported their case against Paul to the governor. When Paul had been summoned, Tertullus began to accuse him, saying:

“Because of you, most excellent Felix, we have long enjoyed peace, and reforms have been made for this people because of your foresight. In every way and everywhere we welcome this with utmost gratitude. But, to detain you no further, I beg you to hear us briefly with your customary graciousness. We have, in fact, found this man a pestilent fellow, an agitator among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes. He even tried to profane the temple, so we seized him. By examining him yourself you will be able to learn from him concerning everything of which we accuse him.”

The Jews also joined in the charge by asserting that all this was true.

joseph-ben-caiaphas

Nicodemus

This minor character is not mentioned in any of the three synoptic gospels, so does not even appear to be in any of the Q source. Looking at the gospel of John, it should become apparent that this individual was only known to the author of John.

We start with John 3:1-21:

Now there was a Pharisee named Nicodemus, a leader of the Jews.

He came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with that person.”

Jesus answered him, “Very truly, I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above.”

Nicodemus said to him, “How can anyone be born after having grown old? Can one enter a second time into the mother’s womb and be born?”

Jesus answered, “Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit. What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not be astonished that I said to you, ‘You must be born from above.’ The wind blows where it chooses, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

Nicodemus said to him, “How can these things be?”

Jesus answered him, “Are you the teacher of Israel, and yet you do not understand these things? Very truly, I tell you, we speak of what we know and testify to what we have seen, yet you do not receive our testimony. If I have told you about earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you about heavenly things? No one has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life. Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world but in order that the world might be saved through him. Those who believe in him are not condemned, but those who do not believe are condemned already because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and people loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil. For all who do evil hate the light and do not come to the light, so that their deeds may not be exposed. But those who do what is true come to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that their deeds have been done in God.”

This passage contains one of the best-known statements from the followers of Jesus, but it also contains the statements that demonstrate that many evangelical followers do not understand their own scriptures, but first the relevant background:

First, this passage suggests that Nicodemus was a member of the Sanhedrin, allegedly one of only 71 Jewish elders to sit on this counsel. This alone makes Nicodemus the single most influential figure apart from Pilate and the High Priest to be referred to in the gospels, and yet, no other gospel even mentions his name. Recall that John was written more than half a century after Jesus was executed, and Mark was written approximately forty years after Jesus's execution: if Nicodemus actually existed, would such a story not have been spread throughout all of his communities of followers?

Second, as a member of the Sanhedrin, both Jesus and Nicodemus understood Aramaic, and it is unlikely that Jesus knew Greek (or at least, there is no suggestion that he ever spoke or taught in Greek). In Greek, the word ἄνωθεν (pronounced "anothen") which is a homonym: it can mean either "from above" or "again". Jesus says “no one can see the kingdom of God without being born ἄνωθεν .” Nicodemus's response is to select the meaning "again", and says so: “Can one enter a second time into the mother’s womb and be born?” Jesus then corrects the misinterpretation, “no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit. What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not be astonished that I said to you, ‘You must be born from above.’ The wind blows where it chooses, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.” Unfortunately, had this been spoken in Aramaic, where the words for "from above" and "again" are different, there would have been no opportunity for Micodemus to misunderstand Jesus.

Next, we have Nicodemus speaking to other members of the Sanhedrin. Given that this would have been a private conversation, the author could have only known about this if Nicodemus himself had relayed the story, so once again, if while he was alive, Nicodemus relayed this story, why, forty years later, was not this member of the Sanhedrin not recorded in any of the other gospels? In John 7:45-52:

Then the temple police went back to the chief priests and Pharisees, who asked them, “Why did you not arrest him?”

The police answered, “Never has anyone spoken like this!”

Then the Pharisees replied, “Surely you have not been deceived, too, have you? Has any one of the authorities or of the Pharisees believed in him? But this crowd, which does not know the law, they are accursed.”

Nicodemus, who had gone to Jesus before and who was one of them, asked, “Our law does not judge people without first giving them a hearing to find out what they are doing, does it?”

They replied, “Surely you are not also from Galilee, are you? Search and you will see that no prophet is to arise from Galilee.”

Nicodemus shows up one more time, at the burial of Jesus in John 19:38-42:

After these things, Joseph of Arimathea, who was a disciple of Jesus, though a secret one because of his fear of the Jews, asked Pilate to let him take away the body of Jesus. Pilate gave him permission, so he came and removed his body.

Nicodemus, who had at first come to Jesus by night, also came, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, weighing about a hundred pounds. They took the body of Jesus and wrapped it with the spices in linen cloths, according to the burial custom of the Jews.

Now there was a garden in the place where he was crucified, and in the garden there was a new tomb in which no one had ever been laid. And so, because it was the Jewish day of Preparation and the tomb was nearby, they laid Jesus there.

Nicodemus, a member of the Sanhedrin, is at the tomb, helping Joseph of Arimathea bury him. None of the other gospels suggest Nicodemus was there, and the other gospels suggest that Joseph of Arimathea was also a member of the Sanhedrin:

Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the council who was also himself waiting expectantly for the kingdom of God, ... Then Joseph bought a linen cloth and, taking down the body, wrapped it in the linen cloth and laid it in a tomb that had been hewn out of rock. He then rolled a stone against the door of the tomb. Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where the body was laid. When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him.
When it was evening, there came a rich man from Arimathea named Joseph, who also was himself a disciple of Jesus... So Joseph took the body and wrapped it in a clean linen cloth and laid it in his new tomb, which he had hewn in the rock. He then rolled a great stone to the door of the tomb and went away. Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were there, sitting opposite the tomb.
Now there was a good and righteous man named Joseph who, though a member of the council, had not agreed to their plan and action. He came from the Jewish town of Arimathea, and he was waiting expectantly for the kingdom of God... Then he took it down, wrapped it in a linen cloth, and laid it in a rock-hewn tomb where no one had ever been laid. It was the day of Preparation, and the Sabbath was beginning. The women who had come with him from Galilee followed, and they saw the tomb and how his body was laid. Then they returned and prepared spices and ointments.

There are numerous witnesses to the burial and yet no mention of Nicodemus, nor of his generous gift of about a hundred pounds of myrrh and aloes with which to anoint Jesus's body. Instead, all three synoptic gospels state that Jesus's body was wrapped in a linen cloth with no mention of spices and ointments, and two of the three synoptic gospels indicate that it is the women who are bringing the ointments the morning after the Sabbath, and yet the gospel of John has Jesus wrapped in about one hundred pounds of spices and ointments, with no mention of Mary Magdalene bringing any such spices or ointments with her.

nicodemus

abiathar

Abiathar

In Mark 2:23-28, we have a story of the disciples and Jesus walking through a field:

One Sabbath he was going through the grain fields, and as they made their way his disciples began to pluck heads of grain.

The Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?”

And he said to them, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need of food, how he entered the house of God when Abiathar was high priest and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and he gave some to his companions?” Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for humankind and not humankind for the Sabbath, so the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath.”

This refers to a high priest at the time of David, but here is the story in 1 Samuel 21:1-6:

David came to Nob to the priest Ahimelech.

Ahimelech came trembling to meet David and said to him, “Why are you alone and no one with you?”

David said to the priest Ahimelech, “The king has charged me with a matter and said to me, ‘No one must know anything of the matter about which I send you and with which I have charged you.’ I have made an appointment with the young men for such and such a place. Now then, what have you at hand? Give me five loaves of bread or whatever is here.”

The priest answered David, “I have no ordinary bread at hand, only holy bread—provided that the young men have kept themselves from women.”

David answered the priest, “Indeed, women have been kept from us as always when I go on an expedition; the vessels of the young men are holy even when it is a common journey; how much more today will their vessels be holy?”

So the priest gave him the holy bread, for there was no bread there except the bread of the Presence, which is removed from before the Lord, to be replaced by hot bread on the day it is taken away.

Ahimelech was helping David against Saul, and Saul came to know of this, and in the next chapter, Saul has Ahimelech, his family, and many of those living in Nob killed in 2 Samuel 22 18-19:

Doeg the Edomite turned and attacked the priests; on that day he killed eighty-five who wore the linen ephod. Nob, the city of the priests, he put to the sword; men and women, children and infants, oxen, donkeys, and sheep, he put to the sword.

The story continues with verses 20-23:

But one of the sons of Ahimelech son of Ahitub, named Abiathar, escaped and fled after David. Abiathar told David that Saul had killed the priests of the Lord.

David said to Abiathar, “I knew on that day, when Doeg the Edomite was there, that he would surely tell Saul. I am responsible for the lives of all your father’s house. Stay with me, and do not be afraid, for the one who seeks my life seeks your life; you will be safe with me.”

Later, in 2 Samuel 8:17, there is the interesting text "Ahimelech the son of Abiathar" and this is repeated in a similar context in 1 Chronicles 24:6:

Zadok son of Ahitub and Ahimelech son of Abiathar were priests; Seraiah was secretary...
..., and Zadok the priest, and Ahimelech son of Abiathar, ...

One attempt at reconciling these two is the unlikely narrative that both father and son had the identical double name Ahimelech-Abiathar; however, in all other references to these two, the father is identified as Ahimelech and the son as Abiathar.

As for the initial offence that brought this up, this is once again, often misunderstood by many followers of Jesus. The covenant forbids doing work on the Sabbath, and yet the law is not an absolute: it would be reasonable that if there was an unforeseen emergency that work would be permitted on the Sabbath (and that work would be obligatory if it was necessary to save a life), but if it is simply a matter of not preparing for the Sabbath, then that would not be grounds for doing work. Now, the covenant is vague as to what is and what is not "work," but over time, eating was not considered work, but gathering crops and selecting seeds from the chaff was. The disciples failure to prepare for the Sabbath does not justify gathering crops and separating seeds from the chaff. Jesus, however, was teaching that the kingdom of Yahweh was coming soon, and he expected it to come in his lifetime, and Jesus also simplified the rules necessary to keep the covenant, repeating statements from other rabbis before him such as the "golden rule" as stated by Hillel the Elder. With the coming of the kingdom, Jesus seems to have felt it was more important to keep the overall intent of the covenant as opposed to spending time worrying about the details: in Mark 12:29-31, it is recorded that Jesus said “The first is, ‘Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one; you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”

Now, this story is copied from Mark by both the authors of Matthew and Luke, and immediately following this pericope in all three gospels is the story where Jesus heals a person with a withered hand. However, in copying this specific pericope, those authors left out the name of the high priest; perhaps because they recognized the error or perhaps because this detail was not significant. Here are all three accounts, with the statements coming from Mark, Matthew and Luke, respectively:

One Sabbath he was going through the grain fields, and as they made their way his disciples began to pluck heads of grain.

At that time Jesus went through the grain fields on the Sabbath; his disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat.

One Sabbath while Jesus was going through some grain fields, his disciples plucked some heads of grain, rubbed them in their hands, and ate them.

The Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?”

When the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, “Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath.”

But some of the Pharisees said, “Why are you doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?”

He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? How he entered the house of God, and they ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him or his companions to eat, but only for the priests?

Jesus answered, “Have you not read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? How he entered the house of God and took and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and gave some to his companions?”

Note that the author of Luke copied Mark almost verbatim, while the author of Matthew varies the words of Jesus. Also, neither copiest keeps the name Abiathar. Matthew then continues to add new material:

Or have you not read in the law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple break the Sabbath and yet are guiltless? I tell you, something greater than the temple is here. But if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless.

All three conclude with similar statements:

Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for humankind and not humankind for the Sabbath, so the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath.”
For the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath.”
Then he said to them, “The Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath.”

Despite the authors of Matthew and Luke having access to the text of Mark, they both explicitly change the words of Jesus.

Tyre and Sidon

These are two major cities within Phoenicia, or more correctly, the Roman province of Syria.

Even as early as Mark 3, we have reports that knowledge of Jesus's miracles were so widespread that people were coming from all over Canaan, including in Mark 3:7-8:

Jesus departed with his disciples to the sea, and a great multitude from Galilee followed him; hearing all that he was doing, they came to him in great numbers from

Judea,
Jerusalem,
Idumea,
beyond the Jordan, and
the region around Tyre and Sidon.

After this, Jesus calls the twelve disciples.

Idumea is the region also known as Edom, the land south of Beersheba. Phonecia is to the north, in what today is Lebanon. And yet, we will see that the three settlements closest to where Jesus lived rejected his message. Would not Capernaum, Chorazin and Bethsaida, where if only 10 people were miraculously healed, then 10% of the population would be related to someone who had a debilitating physical deformity healed, or a skin disease, or a withered hand: Jesus lived there for at least a year, and would he not have healed at least one person per week? It's farcical to believe that an actual god performing actual miracles is ignored when Benny Hinn has orders of magnitude more followers than Jesus himself.

In Mark 7:24-31, it says:

From there he set out and went away to the region of Tyre.

He entered a house and did not want anyone to know he was there. Yet he could not escape notice, but a woman whose little daughter had an unclean spirit immediately heard about him, and she came and bowed down at his feet.

Now the woman was a gentile, of Syrophoenician origin. She begged him to cast the demon out of her daughter.

He said to her, “Let the children be fed first, for it is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.”

But she answered him, “Sir, even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.”

Then he said to her, “For saying that, you may go—the demon has left your daughter.”

And when she went home, she found the child lying on the bed and the demon gone.

Then he returned from the region of Tyre and went by way of Sidon toward the Sea of Galilee, in the region of the Decapolis.

This is the god who created the world, the god who knew while creating angels that some would turn against him, the god who knew before he came to Earth that this woman's daughter would be possesses by one of these angels he created, and this god is making her grovel in front of him, calling herself a “dog”? It was not for faith that her daughter was healed, but for that woman calling herself a “dog.” And so many would claim that Jesus was benevolent and caring and kind for this action towards a Phoenician woman.

Recall that Jesus said that no prophet is accepted in his hometown, in this case, Nazareth. The people of Nazareth saw this person grow up, and understood who he is. Now, the three settlements where Jesus is performing all these miracles, the three settlements where if Jesus had actually miraculously healed just ten people, then likely 10% of the population almost certainly had someone in their family healed of a diseases or mental-health disorder or deformity or other issue, but like Nazareth, these three towns, the three closest to where Jesus based his ministry, had no interest in his message, apparently. In Matthew 11:21-23, we have Jesus being rejected by those living where he based his ministry:

“Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the deeds of power done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, on the day of judgment it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? No, you will be brought down to Hades. For if the deeds of power done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.”

In Matthew 15:21-29, we have a repetition of the story in Mark:

Jesus left that place and went away to the district of Tyre and Sidon.

Just then a Canaanite woman from that region came out and started shouting, “Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is tormented by a demon.”

But he did not answer her at all. And his disciples came and urged him, saying, “Send her away, for she keeps shouting after us.”

He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

But she came and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, help me.”

He answered, “It is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.”

She said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.”

Then Jesus answered her, “Woman, great is your faith! Let it be done for you as you wish.”

And her daughter was healed from that moment.

After Jesus had left that place, he passed along the Sea of Galilee, and he went up the mountain, where he sat down.

At least the author of Matthew has more ethical consideration than the author of Mark, for the author of Matthew changes the words of Jesus: the woman's daughter is being healed on account of her faith. She was, however, forced to grovel and call herself a “dog.” Just like Mark, Jesus travelled almost one hundred miles in both directions, and while previously saying how had all the miracles he did in Capernaum been done in Tyre and Sidon, then they would have "repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes." Yet, now Jesus is in Tyre and Sidon, and seems to do nothing.

However, not only is this statement changed, the entire sense of what Jesus said was changed. If these books were inerrant, would they not contain at least similar phraseology, taking into account translation variations into Greek?

In Mark, Jesus says:

“Let the children be fed first, for it is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.”

“For saying that, you may go—the demon has left your daughter.”

In Matthew, Jesus says:

“I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

“It is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.”

“Woman, great is your faith! Let it be done for you as you wish.”

These are not issues of a translation from Aramaic to Koine Greek, but rather, completely different words and ideas. Additionally, the reason that one does not feed dogs before children is that food is, under certain circumstances, a finite and limited resource: if you had a limited amount of food, and you had a choice between feeding your children, and feeding your dogs, it would be unethical to feed the dogs first; after all, dogs are not even dependent on their owners: a dog can go out and find food elsewhere, while children are entirely dependent on their parents. This passage suggests that the grace of Yahweh is somehow limited, and that by giving some grace to a gentile means that others will be deprived of that grace.

Finally, for entertainment, the phrase “to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs” appears in both:

οὐ γάρ ἐστιν καλὸν λαβεῖν τὸν ἄρτον τῶν τέκνων καὶ τοῖς κυναρίοις βαλεῖν

οὐκ ἔστιν καλὸν λαβεῖν τὸν ἄρτον τῶν τέκνων καὶ βαλεῖν τοῖς κυναρίοις

The word κυναρίοις is translated as dogs. At least this phrase was copied essentially verbatim by the author of Matthew from Mark.

In Luke, Sidon is first mentioned in relation to Jesus being chased out of Nazareth, for in Luke 4:24-27, it says:

And he said, “Truly I tell you, no prophet is accepted in his hometown. But the truth is, there were many widows in Israel in the time of Elijah, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months and there was a severe famine over all the land, yet Elijah was sent to none of them except to a widow at Zarephath in Sidon. There were also many with a skin disease in Israel in the time of the prophet Elisha, and none of them was cleansed except Naaman the Syrian.”

Jesus, having lived in Nazareth for approximately thirty years, and being sinless that entire time, yet the people of Nazareth (with a population of a few hundred) were simply unaware that this person living in their midst never once did something sinful, that this one person, who at the age of 10 was amazing priests in Jerusalem, should have likely said at least something interesting in those thirty years. In reality, he was probably just another charismatic iterant preacher who was as human for those thirty years as everyone else. If you were living with a perfect and sinless god for thirty years as a next-door neighbor, you'd probably notice...

Next, in Luke, Jesus first calls the disciples and only then do we have a parallel for what is said in Mark 3 (where the disciples are called hereafter), so in Luke 6:17-19, we have:

He came down with them and stood on a level place with a great crowd of his disciples and a great multitude of people from

all Judea,
Jerusalem, and
the coast of Tyre and Sidon.

They had come to hear him and to be healed of their diseases, and those who were troubled with unclean spirits were cured. And everyone in the crowd was trying to touch him, for power came out from him and healed all of them.

Then, in Luke 10:13-16, we have a copy of what was said in Matthew (and thus, from the common Q source):

“Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the deeds of power done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. 14 Indeed, at the judgment it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon than for you. 15 And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? No, you will be brought down to Hades. Whoever listens to you listens to me, and whoever rejects you rejects me, and whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.”

Yes, the settlements all around where Jesus lived for almost a year, and where, had he healed just one person a week, he would have affected the lives of almost everyone in those settlements, either directly, or a close family member or relative; and yet, these are the exact people who rejected Jesus and his message, just like the people of Nazareth who grew up with Jesus rejected him, too.

The author of Luke continues in Acts to refer a few times to Tyre, and first in relation to the death of Herod Agrippa in Acts 12:20-23:

Now Herod was angry with the people of Tyre and Sidon. So they came to him in a body, and after winning over Blastus, the king’s personal attendant, they asked for a reconciliation, because their country depended on the king’s country for food. On an appointed day Herod put on his royal robes, took his seat on the platform, and delivered a public address to them. The people kept shouting, “The voice of a god and not of a mortal!” And immediately, because he had not given the glory to God, an angel of the Lord struck him down, and he was eaten by worms and died.

This is not, however, what apparently happened: Herod Agrippa patronized and presided over the the Games of Caesarea, horse and gladiatorial competitions held at the hippodrome and stadium in honor of Emperor Claudius Caesar. At these games, he appeared in silver dress and was compared to a god. Two days later, he became violently ill and died after another three days, with a leading hypothesis being poisoning, and not being eaten by miraculous worms. Later, of no significance, Tyre is listed as one of the stops in a journey by Paul in Acts 21 and then Sidon is mentioned one more time in Acts 27.

The gospel of John does not mention Tyre or Sidon, even once, nor does Paul nor any other author.

tyre-and-sidon

Luke, Mark and Demas

The first references to Mark, Luke and another follower by the name of Demas appear in what is generally considered to be an authentic letter of Paul: In Philemon, Paul namedrops some associates known to both Paul and Philemon, the recipient of the letter, in the hopes of convincing Philemon to free the slave in question, so in the penultimate verse, we have:

Epaphras, my fellow prisoner in Christ Jesus, sends greetings to you, and so do Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke, my coworkers.

The balance of references to these Paul's letters only appear in letters that are not likely from Paul himself, but rather forgeries in the name of Paul. First, in Colossians 4:7-17, the forger lists a number of names:

Tychicus will tell you all the news about me; he is a beloved brother, a faithful minister, and a fellow servant in the Lord. I have sent him to you for this very purpose,

... he is coming with Onesimus, the faithful and beloved brother, who is one of you...

Aristarchus my fellow prisoner greets you,

as does Mark the cousin of Barnabas, concerning whom you have received instructions; if he comes to you, welcome him.

And Jesus who is called Justus greets you. These are the only ones of the circumcision among my coworkers for the kingdom of God, and they have been a comfort to me. Epaphras, who is one of you, a servant of Christ, greets you. He is always striving in his prayers on your behalf, so that you may stand mature and fully assured[d] in everything that God wills. For I testify for him that he has worked hard for you and for those in Laodicea and in Hierapolis. Luke, the beloved physician, and Demas greet you. Give my greetings to the brothers and sisters in Laodicea and to Nympha and the church in her house. And when this letter has been read among you, have it read also in the church of the Laodiceans, and see that you read also the letter from Laodicea. And say to Archippus, “See that you complete the task that you have received in the Lord.”

In 2 Timothy 4, the author writing in the name of Paul says:

Do your best to come to me soon,

for Demas, in love with this present world, has deserted me and gone to Thessalonica;
Crescens has gone to Galatia,
Titus to Dalmatia.

Only Luke is with me.

Get Mark and bring him with you, for he is useful to me in ministry.

I have sent Tychicus to Ephesus.

When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, also the books, and above all the parchments.

Alexander the coppersmith did me great harm; the Lord will pay him back for his deeds. You also must beware of him, for he strongly opposed our message.

It seems that Paul has not had significant luck despite all the miracles, the speaking in foreign tongues, etc. If I knew someone who could magically speak in fluent Ukrainian without ever having taken a class in it, or speak fluent Sandawe without having any clue as to where

It is unlikely that the Mark referred to in 1 Peter 5 is the same Mark above:

Your sister church in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you greetings,

and so does my son Mark.

Greet one another with a kiss of love.

Samaritans

Many Christians have no idea who the Samaritans are, and most likely are not even aware that there are Samaritans today worshiping Yahweh, using a Torah that is essentially the same as the Judean Torah, only that the center of worship is not on Mount Zion in Judea, but rather, on Mount Gerizim in Samaria. The name Samaritan is derived from a word meaning Guardian, and may only coincidentally appear to be a toponymy. The reader is welcome to read an English translation of the Samaritan Torah, the first translation being made less than two decades ago.

In Matthew 10:5-6, Jesus prohibits the disciples from preaching to the Samaritans:

These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not take a road leading to gentiles, and do not enter a Samaritan town, 6 but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel...”

In Luke, we begin at Luke 9:51-56, where Jesus begins his journey south from Galilee to Jerusalem:

When the days drew near for [Jesus] to be taken up, he set his face to go to Jerusalem.

And he sent messengers ahead of him.

On their way they entered a village of the Samaritans to prepare for his arrival, but they did not receive him because his face was set toward Jerusalem.

When his disciples James and John saw this, they said, “Lord, do you want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them?”

But he turned and rebuked them.

Then they went on to another village.

This is classic: the disciples, who were never able to do anything significant, are trying to command fire to come down and consume this town. If Jesus is so set on going to Jerusalem, why do the disciples care?

After this is the parable of "The Good Samaritan". This sounds positive, but you must put the name of the parable into the context of the understanding of the people. Suppose you told the same story, but in the context of post-war Netherlands, and one who was robbed was ignored by two Dutch passerbys, and then a German comes along and helps the individual. In the name "The Good German," there is the implicit assumption that Germans, in general, are a people of ne'ers-do-well. Thus, it is not a praise of the individual, but rather a pejorative of the Samaritan people. Remember, the Samaritan Torah is in post places a perfect parallel of the Judean Torah. However, for interest, here is that story from Luke 10:30-36:

“A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho and fell into the hands of robbers, who stripped him, beat him, and took off, leaving him half dead.

Now by chance a priest was going down that road, and when he saw him he passed by on the other side.

So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side.

But a Samaritan while traveling came upon him, and when he saw him he was moved with compassion.

He went to him and bandaged his wounds, treating them with oil and wine.
Then he put him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him.
The next day he took out two denarii, gave them to the innkeeper, and
said, ‘Take care of him, and when I come back I will repay you whatever more you spend.’”

Jesus could have just as easily chosen common Judean, but instead, he chose a Samaritan.

Later, a Samaritan comes up again in Luke 10:30-36:

On the way to Jerusalem Jesus was going through the region between Samaria and Galilee.

As he entered a village, ten men with a skin disease approached him.

Keeping their distance, they called out, saying, “Jesus, Master, have mercy on us!”

When he saw them, he said to them, “Go and show yourselves to the priests.”

And as they went, they were made clean.

Then one of them, when he saw that he was healed, turned back, praising God with a loud voice.

He prostrated himself at Jesus’s feet and thanked him.

And he was a Samaritan.

Then Jesus asked, “Were not ten made clean? So where are the other nine? Did none of them return to give glory to God except this foreigner?”

Then he said to him, “Get up and go on your way; your faith has made you well.”

This is another fanciful story: if anyone was healed of such a disease, they would most certainly thank the one who healed them. Such stories instead, are there to allow the reader to enter into a state of self-congratulatory: "What selfish and unthankful sinners, 'I' would never be so crude."

Here we also see the author of Luke's tendency to put everything in tens: there are ten who are being healed... In the story of the talents in Matthew, there are three slaves given silver by their owner, and they are rewarded according to their efforts when the owner returns. Following this story, in Luke 19, there is the story of the pounds, and here we have not three but ten slaves being given money, but the consequences of their actions are restricted to the same three stories that were told in Matthew.

The author of Luke last mentions the Samaritans in Acts 8:25:

Now after Peter and John had testified and spoken the word of the Lord, they returned to Jerusalem, proclaiming the good news to many villages of the Samaritans.

Most of John 4 (1-45) is devoted to a story of Jesus passing through a Samaritan town:

Now when Jesus [who was in Jerusalem] learned that the Pharisees had heard, “Jesus is making and baptizing more disciples than John” 2 (although it was not Jesus himself but his disciples who baptized),

he left Judea and started back to Galilee.

But he had to go through Samaria. So he came to a Samaritan city called Sychar, near the plot of ground that Jacob had given to his son Joseph. Jacob’s well was there, and Jesus, tired out by his journey, was sitting by the well. It was about noon.

What it does not say is that this town is on the slopes of Mount Gerizim.

A Samaritan woman came to draw water, and Jesus said to her, “Give me a drink.”

His disciples had gone to the city to buy food.

The Samaritan woman said to him, “How is it that you, a Jew, ask a drink of me, a woman of Samaria?”

Jews do not share things in common with Samaritans.

Jesus answered her, “If you knew the gift of God and who it is that is saying to you, ‘Give me a drink,’ you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water.”

The woman said to him, “Sir, you have no bucket, and the well is deep. Where do you get that living water? Are you greater than our ancestor Jacob, who gave us the well and with his sons and his flocks drank from it?”

Jesus said to her, “Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again, but those who drink of the water that I will give them will never be thirsty. The water that I will give will become in them a spring of water gushing up to eternal life.”

The woman said to him, “Sir, give me this water, so that I may never be thirsty or have to keep coming here to draw water.”

Jesus said to her, “Go, call your husband, and come back.”

The woman answered him, “I have no husband.”

Jesus said to her, “You are right in saying, ‘I have no husband,’ for you have had five husbands, and the one you have now is not your husband. What you have said is true!”

The woman said to him, “Sir, I see that you are a prophet. Our ancestors worshiped on this mountain, but you say that the place where people must worship is in Jerusalem.”

The Samaritans worship here at Mount Gerizim, the Judeans at Mount Zion.

Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But the hour is coming and is now here when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father seeks such as these to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.”

The woman said to him, “I know that Messiah is coming... When he comes, he will proclaim all things to us.”

Jesus said to her, “I am he, the one who is speaking to you.”

Just then his disciples came. They were astonished that he was speaking with a woman, but no one said, “What do you want?” or, “Why are you speaking with her?”

Then the woman left her water jar and went back to the city.

She said to the people, “Come and see a man who told me everything I have ever done! He cannot be the Messiah, can he?”

They left the city and were on their way to him.

Meanwhile the disciples were urging him, “Rabbi, eat something.”

But he said to them, “I have food to eat that you do not know about.”

So the disciples said to one another, “Surely no one has brought him something to eat?”

Jesus said to them, “My food is to do the will of him who sent me and to complete his work. Do you not say, ‘Four months more, then comes the harvest’? But I tell you, look around you, and see how the fields are ripe for harvesting. The reaper is already receiving wages and is gathering fruit for eternal life, so that sower and reaper may rejoice together. For here the saying holds true, ‘One sows and another reaps.’ I sent you to reap that for which you did not labor. Others have labored, and you have entered into their labor.”

Many Samaritans from that city believed in him because of the woman’s testimony, “He told me everything I have ever done.”

So when the Samaritans came to him, they asked him to stay with them, and he stayed there two days.

And many more believed because of his word.

They said to the woman, “It is no longer because of what you said that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this is truly the Savior of the world.”

When the two days were over, he went from that place to Galilee (for Jesus himself had testified that a prophet has no honor in the prophet’s own country). When he came to Galilee, the Galileans welcomed him, since they had seen all that he had done in Jerusalem at the festival, for they, too, had gone to the festival.

The justification for leaving Mount Gerizim for Galilee was because a prophet has no honor in the prophet's own country? This is a parallel to a saying associated with Jesus when he is chased out of Nazareth, when it is said “Prophets are not without honor, except in their hometown and among their own kin and in their own house.” However, when he reaches Galilee, they are welcoming him.

In John 8:48-49, the Judeans insult Jesus by calling him a Samaritan, and Jesus acknowledges that this is an insult by saying that they dishonor Jesus's father.

The Jews answered him, “Are we not right in saying that you are a Samaritan and have a demon?”

Jesus answered, “I do not have a demon, but I honor my Father, and you dishonor me.

It would be interesting if this pointed to rumors as to why it was alleged that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus: recall that Joseph had not yet been married to Mary when she gave birth to Jesus.

samaritans

Summary

If you do not believe in biblical inerrancy, then some of the variations (as described in the stories of Mary Magdalene, and the oddities of how stories involving Lazarus together with Martha and Mary change between the gospels, while being separate in Luke, are conflated and actually replace the anointing of Jesus in the gospel of John) become interesting questions of the social and cultural histories involving the establishment of early doctrine and narratives for the followers of Je. For those breaking free from a fundamentalist Christian religion, the observations above should help discredit beliefs of biblical inerrancy and, and allay the baseless fears that come from threats of eternal torment in Hell (all of which can be avoided simply by "believing" and giving 10% of your salary to your church, as taught by fundamentalist pastors and, indeed, most Christian preachers). For Jews, this should make it clear that this religion grew (and appropriated Judean scriptures only to marginalize and terrorize its people) at best haphazardly in the first decades after its charismatic itinerant apocalyptic preacher from Galilee was executed for sedition against the Roman state, and how its stories, at best, kept some names or places or actions consistent, but differed wildly elsewhere. The high priest is libeled with stories fabricated to demonstrate Jesus's innocence while casting the blame for Jesus's death on that high priest, the Sanhedrin and the Jews of Jerusalem in general. For Muslims, who believe from the Quran that Isa (عِيسَى) never died, the fact that the variations in the stories between the various tellings of the anointing, execution and resurrection (the core beliefs of the Christian understanding of Jesus) of this person can be contrasted with the simpler and consistent understanding told within Islam.

summary