Joseph's ancestry does not really seem to have been as clear as one would have wished and a certain scepticism as to his being the father of Jesus is hinted at in St. Luke: 'And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Eli' (Luke
3:23). Luke ascribes seventy-six progenitors to Joseph (Matthew only 42). There are obviously considerable difficulties in tracing the family tree down to Joseph.
Modern theologians [26] say that the 'immaculate conception' should not be taken to mean that Joseph had not touched his Mary. Are they twisting the meaning of the words inspired by God, because the whole process is so implausible? Matthew makes it perfectly clear: 'When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found to be with child of the Holy Ghost'
(1:18). Nothing could be plainer than that.
Matthew expressly states that John baptized Jesus and how he did it. John knew whom he was dealing with '... He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose' (1:27).
'... but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear' (3:11). John addressed Jesus directly: 'I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?' (3:14). After the baptism the heavens opened and the spirit of God descended 'like a dove' and a voice from heaven said: 'This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased' (3:17). John recognized the man he had baptized, who was even identified by heaven as the Son of God: nothing could be clearer.
----
[*] The figures in brackets refer to the verses quoted from St. Matthew's Gospel.
---- Herod Antipas (4 B.C. to A.D. 40) took John prisoner and even followed his consort's whim when she urged him to have the Baptist beheaded. John suddenly forgot Jesus in prison and sent two disciples to ask him: 'Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?' (11, 3). The impression that the Nazarene - with all his concentrated charisma - made on John during the baptismal ceremony seemed so lasting that it is difficult to understand his lapse of memory.
Let us consult Matthew, the toll collector (9:9) of the Sea of Genezareth, later an apostle and presumably an evangelist! Jesus went about 'all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues' (4:23), which housed the schools in those days. Synagogues came under priests and scribes. No one could just decide ex cathedra to teach there: he had to be examined by the scribes and recognized as one of them.
Where did Jesus get the audacity to criticize this guild on which his teaching activity depended:
'Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter the kingdom of heaven' (5:20).
In his Gospel Matthew records speeches of Jesus which raise justifiable doubts about his meekness.
One recommendation from the mouth of the Son of God says: '... but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.' (5.22). If all Christians who cursed when they were angry were treated like? that, hell would be one gigantic crematorium.
In Chapter 5 Matthew quotes counsels that to the best of my knowledge even the most devout Christians of any age have never followed and, although they were divine commandments, could not follow: And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee (30) ... whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also (39). And if any man will sue thee at law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also (40). and whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain ...' (41).
I am always amazed when distorted quotations by the master are put in the appropriate passage of a
'story taken from everyday life' and then believed as 'God's word'. I have not met a single preacher who has taken these words literally.
Jesus repeatedly urges his hearers to speak clearly, they must never be 'lukewarm': 'But let your communication be, Yea, yea: Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil' (8:37). The Nazarene himself certainly does not follow his own advice for he speaks in veiled parables. For example, when Jesus healed a leper by laying his hands on him, he said (8:4): 'See thou tell no man', but adds in the same breath: '... go thy way, show thyself to the priest.' The original command to keep silence was pointless, because 'great multitudes' (8:1) were present at the miraculous cure. Yea-nay?
Nea!
Jesus asserted that he had not come to summon the righteous but the sinners to repentance: 'I will have mercy and not sacrifice.'
But according to Matthew, mercy is in short supply, because Jesus threatens even for minor sins: '...
the children of the kingdom shall be cast into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth' (8:12).
Love one another - love thy neighbour as thyself ... are the slogans under which the Christian churches have presented their doctrine to the people from the beginning down to today. Why and wherefore does not the Bible reader realize that Jesus simply became a Narcissus who did not follow these categorical imperatives in his own example-setting person? Jesus says: 'He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me' (10:37). Can all that be reconciled with 'God's word' or is the Son of God in need of love?
The citizens of Chorazin, Bethsaida and Capernaum presumably had not received Jesus and his disciples with due friendliness. As a result the Son of God unceremoniously condemned them to hell until the last judgment (11:20 et seq.).
Matthew, presumably chronicling accurately the deeds of the Son of God, had to write contradictions en masse. Jesus sent out his messengers with the exhortation:' ... be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves' (10:16). That's what I call two-faced advice!
Then he prophesies that they 'shall be hated by all men for, my name's sake' (10:22), but need not fear death. Why does Jesus notify his companions of such a frightful fate, when soon afterwards he claims with raised voice: '... my yoke is easy, and my burden light' (11:30)? Even in those days, close to the ostensible events, it was not easy to reduce 'God's word' to a common denominator.
What is the point of a description by Matthew of a disgraceful injustice? 'And Jesus answered and spake unto them again by parables, and said (22:1): The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son (2).' This 'parable' introduces a fine wedding with a fine point. The wedding breakfast was ready, but the guests did not come. Again the king sent out messengers to invite the guests, but they spurned the invitation and even killed some of the messengers. Finally the king gave the order: 'Go ye therefore into the highways and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage' (9). People from the street were driven into the hall. 'And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there was a man which had not a wedding garment...' (11). Wild with rage the king said: 'Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth' (13). And the point of the parable that Jesus formulated? 'For many are called, but few are chosen' (14). Commentaries and recipes for evaluating sermons can twist and turn this example of God's word to their heart's content. To me as a simple Bible reader it remains an example of hideously asocial behaviour, I do not want any hints as to what is 'meant', I can read for myself.
Yet another story related by Matthew does not seem to me to be inspired by the divine spirit. I summarize the text, Chapter 25:14-30. In this 'parable' a rich man goes on a journey and before his departure entrusts his money to his servants. On his return they report to him. One, to whom his master had entrusted five talents (= a silver coin worth 6,000 drachmas), had used the time to make ten out of them. Nothing but praise! Another had made four talents out of the two given him to look after.