Category: People of Significance

People in history who played a key role in defining the Messiah.

Pilate – the Story Behind the Story

Posted on by K.B. Vogelman

Pilate – the Story Behind the Story

 

Pilate will be forever known as the Roman Procurator who condemned Jesus of Nazareth to be crucified.[1] Why he made this judgement defies sensible logic considering Pilate himself and Herod the Tetrarch, son of King Herod, both found Jesus guiltless of any crime.

In the case of Pilate and Jesus, the politics were much deeper than conveyed in the Gospel accounts which primarily focused on the political pressures from the Jewish leadership.[2] Roman influences were just as much, if not more, a significant factor.[3]

Roman politics were no different than they are today, except perhaps for the deadly endgame objective to totally eliminate the opponent, often by death – including Caesars.[4] Each government official had to try to avoid the pitfalls that came with authority, quite commonly from blood relatives and spouses.[5]

Only two Procurators were sent to Judea by Tiberius Caesar during his 22-year reign. Gratus was first to be sent to Jerusalem serving Rome as Procurator for 11 years.

One of Gratus’ noteworthy last actions was to appoint Joseph Caiaphas as High Priest. Pontius Pilate followed as the second Roman Procurator sent by Tiberius serving 10 years.[6]

Insights to the thinking and behaviors of Tiberius Caesar are key to understanding what drove the actions and behaviors of Pilate. What affected the Caesar’s reaction to various scenarios included his view of the Empire past and present; what he deemed to be important; and his temperament.

Highly regarding the policies and decrees of his predecessor, Caesar Augustus, Tiberius said, “I who respect as law all his actions and sayings.”[7] Highlighting this, Tiberius was once observed sacrificing to the Divine Augustus.[8]

Jews were to be treated with moderation by decree of Augustus.[9] In fact, the decree was chiseled into a pillar in the Temple of Caesar in Rome granting the Jews certain liberties – anyone who transgressed it was to be severely punished:[10]

“Cesar Augustus, High Priest, and Tribune of the people ordains thus: …the Jews have liberty to make use of their own customs, according to the law of their fathers, as they made use of them under Hyrcanus the High Priest of Almighty God; and that their sacred money be not touched, but be sent to Jerusalem; and that it be committed to the care of the receivers at Jerusalem; and that they be not obliged to go before any judge on the Sabbath-day, nor on the day of the preparation to it, after the ninth hour… And if any one transgress any part of what is above decreed, he shall be severely punished.”

Backing up his words, Augustus received a complaint by the Jews against Ethnarch Archelaus, a ruling heir of King Herod. Archelaus was banished to Vienna by Augustus who took away his wealth for treating the Jews harshly.[11]

No doubt Pilate was aware of how Tiberius desired to follow the examples of Augustus and the fate of Archelaus. Ruthless as a ruler, as time went on the level of depravity and cruelty by Tiberius was on full display.[12]

Tacitus called it a “cruel temper” surmising absolute power perverted the actions of Tiberius.[13] Josephus described Tiberius as having an “intractable” temper, a “tyrant.”[14]

Regardless of the view of the Jews by Augustus, at heart Tiberius believed religious beliefs of the Jews to be “superstitions” and banned them from the city of Rome. An example, Jews in military service were assigned “to provinces of a less healthy environment.”[15]

Walking a fine line, Pilate had to separate what Tiberius deemed a superstitious religion from the treatment of the people of Judea. The risk – if a report got back to Caesar that Pilate had mistreated the Jewish people, bad things could happen…thus was the authoritative profile of the ruler Pilate served.

Pilate first provoked the Jews by moving his Roman troops from Caesarea to Jerusalem “to abolish the Jewish laws.” During the night, Roman ensigns with effigies of Caesar were brought into the city violating Jewish law prohibiting the images.[16]

Rebellion ensued with thousands of Jews petitioning Pilate to remove the images. In front of Pilate, Jewish zealots prostrated themselves on the ground pulling back their hair to expose their necks for the sword. Taken aback, Pilate removed the ensigns.

Next incitement, Pilate announced the construction of a Jerusalem aqueduct to be paid using the “sacred money” of the Jews. Protests again ensued by tens of thousands of Jews who cast insults at the crier who made the announcement.

Addressing the crowd himself, more aspersions were now hurled at Pilate who took offense. Planning for this likelihood, the Procurator had Roman soldiers dress in disguise and mingle in the crowd.[17]

Giving the signal, the soldiers reacted and pulled out daggers wounding and killing many of the unarmed protesters. No action was taken by Tiberius and Pilate remained as Procurator.

According to Luke 3:1, Jesus began his ministry in the 15th year of Tiberius meaning that Pilate was entering his fifth year as Procurator when the ministry of Jesus began. After a 3-year ministry, it reckons that Pilate was about in his 8th year as Procurator when Jesus was delivered to him to be judged.

By now, Tiberius was a seasoned Caesar in his 18th year of rule with his cruelties being well-known. With a long track record of the Emperor to consider, Pilate had to ponder the risks that came with working for a tyrant who was feared even by Roman citizens.

During the famed ministry of Jesus of Nazareth and with Pilate in Jerusalem, it set the two on an inevitable collision course. In the next sequence of incidents with the Jews, Josephus wrote:

“Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man…”

“…Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross…” – Josephus [18]

After holding their own trial for blasphemy and rendering a verdict of guilty, the Jewish leadership brought Jesus to Pilate for Roman judgement under the accusation of insurrection and tax evasion. As the Roman authority in Judea, the Procurator had little choice but to deal with the situation.[19]

Directly asking Jesus if he is a king, Jesus admitted it to Pilate, just not a King of this world. Perplexed, Pilate sent Jesus to be judged by Galilee Tetrarch Herod Antipas who just happened to be in Jerusalem at that time.

Neither Tetrarch Herod nor Procurator Pilate found any guilt in Jesus for insurrection or incensus against Rome despite Jesus admitting to Pilate that he is a King.[20] Announcing his decision, Jewish reaction was raucous shouting for Jesus to be crucified.

Compelling him to wash his hands of the contrivance, Pilate proclaimed to the crowd of Jews, “I am innocent of this man’s blood.”[21] Jesus was then sentenced to be crucified.

Was Pilate’s decision to have Jesus crucified the result of political fears of the Jews and Tiberius Caesar as the Gospel of John alluded or was it part of a divine Messiah plan where an innocent man was to be crucified – or maybe both?[22]

 

Postscript: Pilate, too, was caught in the spiderweb of Jewish-Roman politics. About two years later, the Samarians lodged a complaint against Pilate for his abuses of them to Vitellius, Roman provincial governor of Syria. Vitellius removed both Pilate and Caiaphas from their positions sending Pilate to Rome to be judged by Tiberius, but the Caesar was murdered while he was enroute.[23] Tradition holds that Pilate, like Archelaus, was banished to Vienna by Caius, better known as Caligula.[24]

 

Updated December 6, 2023.

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

REFERENCES:

[1] Josephus, Flavius.  Antiquities of the Jews.  Trans. and commentary, William Whitson.  The Complete Works of Josephus. 1850. Book XVIII, Chapter III.3. <http://books.google.com/books?id=e0dAAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false>  Tacitus, Gaius Cornelius. The Annals. 109 AD. Books XV.44. <http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Tacitus/Annals/15B*.html> Lucian of Samosata.  “The Death of Peregrine.” The Works of Lucian of Samosata. Volume IV. 1905. p 82. <http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/luc/wl4/wl420.htm>  “Pontius Pilate Biography.” TheFamousPeople. photo. n.d. <https://images.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search;_ylt=AwrEfjiRA0djwjcA1lUPxQt.;_ylu=Y29sbwNiZjEEcG9zAzEEdnRpZAMEc2VjA3BpdnM-?p=pontius+pilate+images&type=sdff_9527_FFW_ZZ&hsimp=yhs-3&hspart=iba&grd=1&ei=UTF-8&fr=yhs-iba-3#id=0&iurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thefamouspeople.com%2Fprofiles%2Fimages%2Fpontius-pilate-1.jpg&action=click> 
[2] Matthew 27; Mark 15; Luke 23; John 18.
[3] John 19:12. CR Luke 23:24. Smith, Murray J. “The Political Context of the Gospels.” Academia. 2010.  pp 98-100. <file:///C:/Users/KIM_VO~1/AppData/Local/Temp/The_Political_Context_of_the_Gospels.pdf> 
[4] Tacitus, Gaius Cornelius. The Annals. Books I, VI.  “Julius Caesar.” Encyclopædia Britannica. 2020.
<https://www.britannica.com/biography/Julius-Caesar-Roman-ruler> “Tiberius.” Encyclopædia Britannica. 2020. <https://www.britannica.com/biography/Tiberius/Reign-as-emperor>
[5] Josephus. Antiquities. Book XVII, Chapter XIII. 2, 5; Book XVIII, Chapter VI.6-7, 10. Josephus. Wars. Book II, Chapter 9.5  Tacitus. Annals. Books II, XV. Suetonius (C. Suetonius Tranquillus or C. Tranquillus Suetonius).  Suetonius (C. Suetonius Tranquillus or C. Tranquillus Suetonius). The Lives of the Twelve Caesars. Tiberius, #50, 51, 52.< http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/12Caesars/home.html>
[6] Josephus. Antiquities. Book XVIII, Chapter II.2; VI.5 “Valerius Gratus.” Encyclopedia.com. 2019. <https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/valerius-gratusdeg>  Carrier, Richard C. “Herod the Procurator:  Was Herod the Great a Roman Governor of Syria?” 2011. pp 34-37. <https://www.academia.edu/1203990/Herod_the_Procurator_Was_Herod_the_Great_a_Roman_Governor_of_Syria?email_work_card=view-paper> 
[7] Tacitus. Annals. Book IV.  Strabo. Geography. 6.4. <http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0198:book=6:chapter=4&highlight=tiberius>
[8] Tacitus. Annals. Book IV.
[9] Josephus. Antiquities. Book XVII, Chapter XIII. 2.
[10] Josephus, Flavius. Antiquities of the Jews. Book XVI, Chapter VI.2. n.d <https://books.google.com/books?id=e0dAAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=Augustus&f=false>
[11] Josephus. Antiquities. Book XVII, Chapter XIII. 2, 5.  Bunson, Matthew.  Encyclopedia of the Roman Empire. “Herod Antipas.” 2002. <https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780816045624>  Bunson, Matthew.  Encyclopedia of the Roman Empire. “Jerusalem.” 2002. <https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780816045624>
[12] Suetonius. The Lives of the Twelve Caesars. Tiberius, #49, 50, 55, 59, 61, 62, 66, 67.
[13] Tacitus. Annals. Book VI.
[14] Josephus. Antiquities. Book XVIII, Chapters II.4, VI.5.
[15]  Suetonius. “Tiberius.” #36.
[16] Josephus. Antiquities. Book XVIII, Chapter III.1.  Josephus. Wars. Book II, Chapter IX.3.  Calmet, Augustin. Calmet’s Great Dictionary of the Holy Bible. Pilate. 1813. <https://books.google.com/books?id=FgM2AQAAMAAJ&pg=PP305&lpg=PP305&dq=Pilate+banished,+Vienne&source=bl&ots=fIZ2ZHY3xl&sig=ACfU3U101WIrN_RVsnslwXcQIHIdEdILGw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiJxYrQpYbnAhUJOisKHZ5HB1gQ6AEwEHoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=Pilate%20banished%2C%20Vienne&f=false>
[17] Josephus. Antiquities. Book XVIII, Chapters III.2.  Josephus. Wars. Book II, Chapter IX.4.  Calmet, Augustin. Calmet’s Great Dictionary of the Holy Bible. Pilate.
[18] Josephus. Antiquities. Book XVIII, Chapters III.3.
[19] Matthew 27; Mark 15; Luke 23; John 18.
[20] Luke 26:6-12.  Bunson, Matthew. Encyclopedia of the Roman Empire. “Herod Antipas.” 2002. <https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780816045624>  Tarwacka, Anna. “The consequences of avoiding census in Roman law.” 2013. <https://www.academia.edu/5525859/The_consequences_of_avoiding_census_in_Roman_law> 
[21] Matthew 27:24-26; Mark 15:11-15; Luke 23:20-25; John 19:4-15.
[22] John 19:12. Josephus. Antiquities. Book XVIII, Chapters III.1.
[23] Josephus. Antiquities. Book XVIII, Chapters III.3, IV.2.
[24] “Caius Caesar Augustus Caligula.” Jewish Virtual Library. 2008. <https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/caius-caesar-agustus-caligula>  Cohen, Jennie. “7 Things You May Not Know About Caligula.” History.com. 2012. <https://www.history.com/news/7-things-you-may-not-know-about-caligula>  Smith, William, ed. Dictionary of Greek and Roman. “Vienna.” n.d. <http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0064:entry=vienna-geo&highlight=pilate> 

Mark – Interpreter for Peter

Posted on by K.B. Vogelman

Mark – Interpreter for Peter

 

Oxyrhynchus Papyrus LXXXIII 5345 circa 1st-2nd century.

Mark’s Gospel seems like the fairy tale stepchild of the Gospel accounts of Jesus of Nazareth. Shortest of the four and probably the least quoted, that does not mean the Gospel is less than credible or authentic.

Assessing the merit and authenticity of Mark can be approached in two ways – historical timeline and uniqueness. How far back in history can the source of Mark’s Gospel be traced? What information is exclusive to Mark, not appearing in any other Gospel?

Experts date the writing of Mark to around 60 AD possibly making it the oldest Gospel although there is debate that Matthew preceded it.[1] Evidence to the dating timeframe are two historical reference points.

Jerusalem’s destruction, which occurred in 70 AD, is not mentioned the Gospel.[2] Add to this, Mark 13:2 refers to the destruction of the Temple in future tense suggesting it had not yet happened.[3]

Origins of the Gospel’s author can be traced outside the Bible back to some of the original Disciples. Papias, an astute man born in 70 AD, made a direct reference in his writings to books “already written” which would had to have been just a few years after the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth.[4] His personal mission, instead, was to seek out the actual elders of the early church to ascertain the truth from them directly:

“If, then, any one who had attended on the elders came, I asked minutely after their sayings,-what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the Lord’s disciples: which things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say.” – Papias

Identified by name as sources by Papias are Aristion and the presbyter John, both of whom personally knew seven of the Disciples.[5] At the conclusion of his investigation, Papias provided a matter-of-fact report, saying in part:[6]

“And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered.  It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord’s sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them.  For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements.”

Irenaeus was a student of Polycarp who himself was personally mentored by the Disciple John.[7] Like Papias, Irenaeus identified Mark as the author of the Gospel, the traveling interpreter for the Disciple Peter:[8]

“…Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter.”

“…Mark, the interpreter and follower of Peter, does thus commence his Gospel narrative…”

Not just casual acquaintances, Mark and Luke were both part of the Apostle Paul’s ministry.[9] The Book of Acts, written by the author of Luke, mentions Mark’s name three times identifying him as “John Mark.”

In the Book of Philemon written by Paul, Mark and Luke are both called out by name.[10] Other times, Peter referred to Mark as “my son” and the Paul referred to Mark as the cousin of Barnabas.[11]

Mark’s Gospel reflects the knowledge gained during his years spent traveling with Peter and Paul; his interactions with the other Disciples; and listening to eyewitness account. If Mark referenced Matthew or vice versa, in their era it was common and acceptable writing protocol to copy information from other sources without any formal references.[12]

In the world of investigators, identical or nearly identical statements can be a clear indication of collusive deception as alleged by some Gospel critics.[13] Several differences between Mark and the other Gospels are readily apparent through simple literary analysis.

Nearly 8% of Mark, 51 verses in all, are unique content. Matthew has 28 chapters and Luke 24 whereas Mark has only 16 chapters. Writing analysis also strongly suggests Mark had the special ability to interpret both Aramaic and Greek.[14]

Unlike Matthew and Luke, Mark did not provide any genealogical details of Jesus. To begin the Gospel account, in the very first verse Jesus is declared to be the Son of God. The next two verses link an Isaiah prophecy to his introduction of John the Baptist.[15]

Miracles by Jesus solely reported in Mark are two:  the healing of the deaf mute and healing the blind man at Bethsaida.[16] One parable is exclusive to Mark, the seed growing in secret, as well as possibly a second (or was it an analogy?) – the slaves in charge of a house.[17]

Activity the night before the Resurrection event is exclusively found in Mark. Named are three women, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome, who purchased and prepared aromatic spices and anointing oils to be used the following morning at the tomb of Jesus.[18]

Both Mark and Luke pick up the Resurrection story at the tomb after the stone had been rolled away. Mark reveals a very specific detail not described in the other Gospels: “Entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting at the right.” Further, he reports the witnessing women trembled, were amazed and afraid – details not reported in the other three Gospels.[19]

Does Mark’s Gospel about Jesus of Nazareth bear the marks of credibility and authenticity?

 

Updated September 3, 2023.

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

REFERENCES:

[1] Ryrie. Charles C., ed.  Ryrie Study Bible. New American Standard Trans. 1978. “Introduction to the Book of Matthew;” “Introduction to the Book of Mark; “Introduction to the Book of Luke.”  “New Testament – Historical Books.” “New Testament.” Jewish Encyclopedia. 2011. <http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/11498-new-testament> “The Four Gospels.” ReligionFacts.com. 2019. <http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/texts/gospels.htm>
Gloag, Paton J. Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels. 1895. pp 45, 204. <https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=yale.39002051125079&view=1up&seq=9>
[2] “Mark, the Gospel According to.” Easton’s 1897 Bible Dictionary. 3rd Edition. n.d.  <http://www.ccel.org/e/easton/ebd/ebd/T0002400.html#T0002421> Ryrie. Ryrie Study Bible. “Introduction to the Book of Mark.”
[3] “New Testament.” Jewish Encyclopedia. “The Four Gospels.” ReligionFacts.com. Gloag. Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels. pp 45, 204.
[4] Papias. “Papias.” Fragment I. “From the exposition of the oracles of the Lord.”  2005. <http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.vii.ii.i.html>
[5] Schaff. Ante-Nicene Fathers. “Introductory Note to the Fragments of Papias.”  <http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.vii.ii.i.html> Papias. Fragment I, footnote #1739.  Papias. Fragment VI, footnote #1755. <http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.vii.ii.vi.html>
[6] Papias. Fragments I & VI. Swete, Henry Barclay. The Gospel According to St. Mark, The Greek Text with Notes and Indices. 1902. pp LX – LXI. <https://books.google.com/books?id=WcYUAAAAQAAJ&lpg=PA127&ots=f_TER300kY&dq=Seneca%20centurio%20supplicio%20pr%C3%A6positus&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false> Papias. “Papias.” Fragment I. “From the exposition of the oracles of the Lord.”  2005. <http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.vii.ii.i.html>
[7] Schaff, Philip. “Introduction – The General Character of His Work.” Ante-Nicene Fathers. Volume I. <http://www.ccel.org/ccel/richardson/fathers.xi.i.i.html>  Schaff, Philip. “Introductory Note to the Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians.” Ante-Nicene Fathers. Volume I.  n.d. Christian Classics Ethereal Library. 13 July 2005. http://m.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.iv.i.html>  Gloag, The Synoptic Gospels. p11.
[8] Irenaeus. Against Heresies. Book III, Chapters I.1, X.5, XIV.1. <http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.html> CR Acts 12:12.
[9]   Swete. The Gospel According to St. Mark, The Greek Text with Notes and Indices. pp XV – XXI. Irenaeus, Against Heresies. Book III, Chapter XV.3. Papias. “Papias.” Fragment I. “From the exposition of the oracles of the Lord.”
[10] Acts 15:37; 12:12, 35; Philemon 1:24.
[11] 1 Peter 5:13;  Colossians 4:10.
[12] Reed, Annette Yoshiko.  Pseudepigraphy, Authorship, and ‘The Bible’ in Late Antiquity. pp 478 & 489. 2008. Academia.edu. <> Chase, Jeffrey S. “The Gutenberg Printing Press.” Duke University|Department of Computer Science. n.d.  <http://www.cs.duke.edu/~chase/cps49s/press-summary.html>  Fausset, Andrew R.  “New Testament.” Fausset Bible Dictionary. 1878. <http://classic.studylight.org/dic/fbd> “Custom Cheating and Plagiarism essay paper writing service.” ExclusivePapers.com. 2019.  <http://exclusivepapers.com/essays/Informative/cheating-and-plagiarism.php> Cummings, Michael J. “Did Shakespeare Plagiarize?” Cummings Study Guides. 2003 <http://cummingsstudyguides.net/xPlagiarism.html> Pearse, Roger, ed.  “Tacitus and his manuscripts.” The Tertullian Project. 2008. <http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/tacitus>
[13] Vick, Tristan D. “Dating the Gospels: Looking at the Historical Framework.” Advocatus Atheist. 2010.  <http://advocatusatheist.blogspot.com/2010/01/dating-gospels-looking-at-historical.html>  “New Testament.” Jewish Encyclopedia. 2011.  Etinger, Judah. Foolish Faith. Chapter 6. 2019. FoolishFaith.com. <http://www.foolishfaith.com/book_chap6_history.asp>  Shamoun, Sam. “The New Testament Documents and the Historicity of the Resurrection.” Answering-Islam.org. 2013. <http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/documents.htm>  Sapir Avinoam. LSI Laboratory for Scientific Interrogation. Language analysis courses.  <http://www.lsiscan.com/id37.htm>
[14] “Mark, the Gospel According to.” Easton’s Bible Dictionary. 3rd Edition.  Swete. The Gospel According to St. Mark, The Greek Text with Notes and Indices. pp XIX, LXXIV. MacRory, Joseph. “Gospel of Saint Mark.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. 1910. <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09674b.htm>  “Miscellaneous Notes and Queries.” 1895. History, Folk-Lore, Mathematics, Mysticism, Art, Science, Etc. Volume 13. p21. <https://books.google.com/books?id=diwAAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA21&lpg=PA21&dq=what+language+did+Mark+interpret+for+Peter?&source=bl&ots=AnNyDYHoXC&sig=ACfU3U1nG49JG00-xpncw9xnrUbYIAs6ng&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwipo6-qwdjjAhUInawKHRHOA8U4ChDoATADegQICBAB#v=onepage&q=what%20language%20did%20Mark%20interpret%20for%20Peter%3F&f=false>
[15] Mark 1:1-4. NLT, NASB.
[16] Mark 7:31-37; 8:22-26. Aune, Eilif Osten. “Synoptic Gospels.” Bible Basics. 2013. <https://web.archive.org/web/20171214110423/http://www.bible-basics-layers-of-understanding.com/Synoptic-Gospels.html>  “Luke, the Gospel According to.” Easton’s Bible Dictionary. 3rd Edition. n.d. <http://www.ccel.org/e/easton/ebd/ebd/T0002300.html#T0002331> Ryrie. “The Miracles of Jesus.”
[17] Mark 4:26. Sween, Don and Nancy. “Parable.” BibleReferenceGuide.com. n.d. <http://www.biblereferenceguide.com/keywords/parable.html>  Ryrie. “The Parables of Jesus.” Aune. “Synoptic Gospels.”
[18] Mark 16:1.
[19] Mark 16:5 (NKJV), 8.

 

Joseph’s Dilemma With Mary

Posted on by K.B. Vogelman

Joseph’s Dilemma With Mary

 

Joseph’s behavior affected the Nativity story much more than it may seem. His reactions to the extreme circumstances surrounding Mary’s pregnancy reveals truths about her as well as himself.

Most likely Joseph knew Mary through community interactions in Nazareth such as during the harvest or through their Synagogue.[1] He would have been familiar with her family’s reputation and had confidence that she was a marriageable virgin, a very important factor in their conservative Jewish society.[2]

Betrothals typically lasted for a year during which time Joseph was expected to be very busy.[3] As a bridegroom, in addition to paying the traditional bride-price, he had to make money for other financial obligations such as preparing their new home and sponsoring a 3-day wedding feast for their guests.[4]

Ketubah, 1063 AD

Initially, Joseph had few worries about the virtuous nature of his prospective bride. By law, a marriage contract called a ketubah legally declared Mary to be a virgin; the terms of their marriage; and it was signed by the witnesses who vetted Mary.

Mary had less commitment pressures to prepare for the wedding … simply follow the rules of the process. A betrothed girl subject to Judaic Law was under strict supervision of her family and the watchful eye of the community. She was not allowed to be alone at any time with an adult male, not even a male family member.[5]

During his appearance to Mary delivering God’s message that she was miraculously pregnant, Gabriel the archangel, also informed Mary that Elizabeth, her cousin, was 6 months pregnant. With a common unique situation, it seemed to be the perfect opportunity to visit Elizabeth who lived in a village about 6 days away near Jerusalem.[6]

Mary would be gone for 3 months. Keeping in touch with Joseph would be very limited and delayed, if at all.[7]

Joseph would not become aware of Mary’s pregnancy until sometime after her return to Nazareth. It is unclear exactly when he discovered that she was pregnant, but it is clear from Matthew‘s use of the Greek word heurisko meaning “to hit upon…to find (by chance)” that it was a big surprise when he did find out![8]

Overwhelming emotions by Joseph would be expected – hurt and anger followed by resentment, embarrassment, doubt, uncertainty, temptations of vengefulness  and other mixed feelings. Then the big question – what to do next?

Knowing he was not responsible for Mary’s pregnancy, there were two huge consequences to consider. First is the obvious, why would a bridegroom want to marry his bride-to-be who was carrying a child fathered by someone else?

Joseph had the legal recourse of a divorce during their betrothal. For him, it was a legitimate escape avenue for Mary’s seemingly obvious indiscretion and Jewish law favored his position – he only had to make the accusation of adultery.[9]

Very strong circumstantial evidence supported such a charge. Joseph just needed to point to Mary’s state of pregnancy that began while she was out-of-town on a 3-month trip without him to visit her cousin, Elizabeth.[10]

His reaction to the situation is perhaps the most telling evidence of a truth that Joseph was not the father of Mary’s child. Playing the divorce card would also have immediately ended the royal inheritance rights of the unborn Jesus.[11]

Consequences of a divorce weighed heavily on Joseph. Not only would it destroy Mary’s reputation and cause financial loss to both Mary and her family, a public accusation of infidelity could carry a charge of adultery – stoning would not have been out of the question.[12]

Attesting to Joseph’s honorable character, he was seeking to quietly settle the divorce. It would, in effect, minimize embarrassment to Mary, her family and avoid the public charge of adultery.[13]

Moving forward with the marriage had many downsides although it would be the expected behavior of a man who believed himself to be the father of his betrothal’s baby. Frowned upon by the Rabbis, accidental pregnancies during betrothals were a reality, even in those days. The Rabbi’s dealt with these instances by allowing the couple to move up their wedding date and get on with life as a married couple.[14]

Bill of Divorce or “Get”

If Joseph stayed with his pregnant betrothal, their community of family, friends and neighbors would assume the pregnancy was a result of his own doing, even if it wasn’t. Joseph would have to endure the undeserving consequences of facing public scorn and humiliation while swallowing his pride and overcoming his personal feelings.

It would take a big man. Few men would do it. Unexpectedly, Joseph decided not to pursue a divorce.

Joseph set aside all his negative emotions and feelings to honor his marriage commitment to Mary knowing he was not the father of her child while willingly accepting the consequences that would come with it. What caused this sudden change of heart was not to be expected.

Matthew reports the game-changing moment came from a visit by “an angel of the Lord.” He delivered a message from God telling Joseph that Mary’s conception was from the Holy Spirit, her child would be a boy to be named Immanuel which Joseph understood to mean “Jesus.”[15]

Actions speak louder than words, volumes in this case. Something very unusual and significant happened.[16] Did Joseph’s behavior play a key role in determining if the conception and birth of Jesus of Nazareth was a fulfillment of the Isaiah 7:14 prophecy?

 

 

Updated November 15, 2023.

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

REFERENCES:

[1] Brayer, Menachem M. The Jewish Woman in Rabbinic Literature. 1986. pp 68-69. <http://books.google.com/books?id=GhPxFOCdQj4C&pg=PA143&lpg=PA143&dq=sex+betrothal+jewish&source=web&ots=G4jLlub8y9&sig=gnkOuPI8xLKvYl57J9PR9VY3kVg#PPA143,M1>
[2] Deuteronomy 22:15, 19. Brayer. The Jewish Woman in Rabbinic Literature. pp 57, 59, 61. “Marriage Laws.” Jewish Encyclopedia. 2011. <http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/10435-marriage-laws>
[3] “Betrothal.” Jewish Encyclopedia. 2011. <http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/3229-betrothal> Brayer.  The Jewish Woman in Rabbinic Literature. p 62.  Edersheim.  The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah. 1883. Book II, Chapter 4.  https://philologos.org/__eb-lat/book204.htm> Thompson, James C.  Women in the Ancient World. July 2010.  “Women in Ancient Israel” > “Women and the Law in Ancient Israel.” <http://www.womenintheancientworld.com/women%20and%20the%20law%20in%20ancient%20israel.htm>
[4] Soncino Babylonian Talmud. Ed. Isidore Epstein. Kethuboth 3b. 1935-1948. <https://israelect.com/Come-and-Hear/kethuboth/kethuboth_3.html>  Missler, Chuck. “The Wedding Model.” Koinonia House, Inc. 2018. <http://www.khouse.org/articles/2003/449/#notes>  Brayer. The Jewish Woman in Rabbinic Literature. p 70.  “Marriage Contract for Shelamzion and Judah.” K. C. Hanson’s Collection of Greek Documents. 128 AD. photo. <http://www.kchanson.com/ANCDOCS/greek/marrcon.html> 
[5] Soncino Babylonian Talmud. Kethuboth 12a, 12b, 13a, 13b. <https://israelect.com/Come-and-Hear/kethuboth/index.html> “Adultery.” Jewish Encyclopedia. 2011. <http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/865-adultery> Brayer. The Jewish Woman in Rabbinic Literature. pp 142-143.
[6] Luke 1.  “Map of Israel in the Time of Jesus.”  Bible History Online. n.d.<https://www.bible-history.com/maps/palestine_nt_times.html>
[7] Luke 1.
[8] Matthew 1:18. Net.bible.org. Greek text. “heurisko <2147>.” Lexicondorance.com. <http://lexiconcordance.com/greek/2147.html>
[9] “Adultery.” Jewish Encyclopedia. 2011. <http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/865-adultery>
[10] Matthew 1:18, 39-43; Luke 1:39, 56. Edersheim. The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah. p 586. “Adultery.” Jewish Encyclopedia. 2011. Brayer, Menachem M. The Jewish Woman in Rabbinic Literature. pp 192-193. <http://books.google.com/books?id=GhPxFOCdQj4C&pg=PA143&lpg=PA143&dq=sex+betrothal+jewish&source=web&ots=G4jLlub8y9&sig=gnkOuPI8xLKvYl57J9PR9VY3kVg#PPA143,M1>
[11] Matthew 1:19. “Divorce.” Jewish Encyclopedia. 2011. <http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/5238-divorce> Edersheim, Alfred. The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah. 1883. Book II, Chapter 4. <http://philologos.org/__eb-lat/default.htm
[12] Deuteronomy 22:20-21, 23-24. John 8:2-7.  “Adultery.” Jewish Encyclopedia.  “Marriage Laws.” Jewish Encyclopedia.  “Marriage Ceremonies.” Jewish Encyclopedia. 2011. <http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/10434-marriage-ceremonies> Josephus, Flavius. Against Apion. Book II, #25. Trans. and commentary William Whitson. The Complete Works of Josephus. 1850. <http://books.google.com/books?id=e0dAAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false>  Thompson,“Women in the Ancient World.”  Edersheim.  The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah. Book II, Chapter 4.
[13] Matthew 1:19.  Schneerson; Menachem M. “The Betrothed.” Chabad org. 2018. <http://www.chabad.org/parshah/article_cdo/aid/296931/jewish/The-Betrothed.htm>  “Marriage Ceremonies” & “Adultery.” Jewish Encyclopedia.
[14] Brayer. The Jewish Woman in Rabbinic Literature. pp 143-144, 146-147.  Lamm, Maurice. The Jewish Way in Love & Marriage. 2018. Section “Celebrating the Marriage Covenant” > Chapter “Jewish Betrothal Blessing;” Section “The Structure of The Marriage Covenant” > Chapter “The Jewish Marriage Ceremony.”  <http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/465140/jewish/The-Jewish-Way-in-Love-Marriage.htm>   Edersheim. The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah. Book II, Chapter 4, footnote #27.  “Ḳiddushin.”’ Jewish Encyclopedia. 2011. <http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/9310-kiddushin>
[15] Matthew 1.
[16] Edersheim. The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah. Book II, Chapter 4.