In my secular studies of Palestine during Jesus lifetime, I discovered the fact that Rome had found the Jews a troublesome people and what worked best for Rome was to let the Jews rule themselves and do what they wanted to as long as Rome got their taxes. So yes, paying taxes to the Romans was a huge issue and not to be minimized, but that and having Roman soldiers walking around was about it. As far as taking fish from the Sea of Galilee, it would have been too difficult to keep the fish from rotting to take them to Rome. With Rome's dominance of the huge Mediterranean, including Northern Africa, why bother with fish from what was basically a big lake? However, this whole train of thought goes along with a push to make Jesus going against the Roman Empire. The problem is that it's just not there. Nowhere in the Gospels does Jesus criticize Rome. He even passes up a terrific opportunity to speak against Roman taxes when asked about it. He says, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's," basically saying, Caesar's face is on the coins so pay your taxes. Jesus did attack the religious leaders over and over for their hypocrisy. That is what got him crucified. And it is not anti-Semitism to say that. Pilot was just trying to keep unrest down. Why would he be afraid of a homeless itinerant rabbi, who spent most of his time in Galilee? Jesus was popular, but he preached peace and loving one's enemies, not going against Rome. Give me some scripture references where Jesus attacks Rome. Thanks for the chance to express myself! Keep writing! At least you make me head back to the Bible! 🥰
I apologize, my question/request is for the author/essay regarding the ancient manuscript that had "Martha" added to the story of Lazarus. I can't locate where I "saved" it. AsI grow older, I really miss my mind.
That's why there is a Cottage Archive. Go to the web version of The Cottage. Click on the menu item, "Archive." Put "Mary Magdalene" or whatever you're looking for in the search bar. And presto: There's your answer.
Archive access is part of your paid subscription. It is a super tool.
Diana , I have been subscriber to the cottage for several years. Busy with end of year things I realized on Sunday I have not received the cottage since 1st week on January. Could you check on that please
I am wary of "upending" traditional interpretations without seriously taking into account the Gospel writer's intentions. Though much of his thought has been rendered obsolete, there is still wisdom in Albert Scweitzer's warning against pressing our modern concerns into the life of Jesus. We can do that even when assessing what historical information we have abount the contextual times. Allowing for the sparsity of Gospel accounts, sticking to what is deemed essential to convey the Gospel writer's concerns, and given that by all accounts Jesus had spent time in Capernaum, I think it reasonable to assume that these guys were well aware of Jesus and something compelling about him and his words and activities, rather than some mezmerizing, divine power overwhelming them to drop everything. It's not even clear from the Gospel accounts that they deserted everyone or left them in the lurch. Well, in one passage they claim to have left everything. But the details are not clear. Again, we have to ask what the author is up to. That being said, there's plenty to ponder about the total reorienting of their lives from what preoccupied them to the call of God to orient their lives totally toward God and the Kingdom and ministry of our Lord. That same call comes to us within our lives of essential responsibilities, to assess what our priorities are and the total claim our Lord has on our lives. That call can come to us right where we are. The difference is to be up front and faithful in lives which bear unmistakeable witness to our Lord's claim on us.
No doubt there is more than one way to interpret Jesus' call to the fishermen to follow him. Yes, when we follow Jesus, His way can be fulfilling and liberating . However, Jesus does, in other places, challenge people to make a sacrifice in following him. He said "Take up your cross and follow me," more than once. Also, it had to be at least some sacrifice for those fishermen to leave wives and families. I think the problem comes when Christian leaders try to guilt people into serving God. Jesus challenged people and still challenges us but that is not the same as putting guilt on others. I love to be challenged by a good sermon, but I hate it when pastors get legalistic or resort to guilt to get people to act. The Holy Spirit can challenge in a loving way that causes one to want to follow and that, I believe, was how Jesus worked.
Thank you for musings on this text. I too have always felt there wasn't much good news in the traditional evangelistic interpretation. The historical and cultural research of Ched Meyers and others helps us understand the context so much better. No one had ever asked Simon, Andrew, James or John what they wanted to be when they grew up. Career choice was not a thing in the ancient world. As a peasant, you worked the fields your parents and grandparents had, and fished in the off-seasons if you could get a license to do so, all in order to keep body and soul together. Jesus was the first one to offer these people an alternative to eking out a living from the leftovers of Caesar's trickle down economics.
A member of my congregation sent me this poem by Steve Garnass-Holmes (unfoldinglight.net). The focus on leaving behind the nets that entangle and enmesh proved to be a catalyst for my sermon.
I LOVE how you turned a VERY familiar narrative on its head. Your use of culture and history allowed me to hear Jesus' words in a completely different light. Thank you!!
Thank you, Diana, for yet another fresh look at a well-known passage (or at least I thought I knew it well). You opened up a more nuanced understanding. Anything I wrote about this passage is being retired. I am grateful for your continued work to bring fresh insight into our life in Christ.
Diana, After attending the Southern Lights Conference, and listening to Libby's fantastically amazing story and research, I am now curious about the story of Mary...repeated in Luke re: the tears on Jesus' feet and the wiping of them with her hair, and the passage in John which identifies her as the Mary who did that. Seems contradictory, how do you feel about those two passages identifying Mary?
(Luke 7:36-39, 47 and John 11:2) I would surely appreciate hearing your take.
The Luke passage is, most likely, similar to the Mary/Martha story in Luke, a different person. She's NEVER identified in Luke. NEVER. The Luke story most likely took place in northern Israel, the John story took place in Bethany, near Jerusalem. Two different locations and timelines.
From what I understand, the earliest church did not conflate the two women and the identification of Luke's woman as Mary Magdalene didn't begin until Gregory the Great did so in the 6th century. Most historians agree that the Pope was the first to clearly identify the "sinful woman" in Luke with Mary Magdalene and attempt to harmonize the two passages. Remember: Luke never names the woman.
John does, of course, identifies an anointing by a clearly names Mary in Bethany, who Libbie and others is Mary Magdalene (the Eastern Church has always identified Mary of Bethany in John 11 and 12 as Mary Magdalene). In short: Two gospels, two stories, two different women. Pretty easy, really. I don't know anything about the status of the text in ancient manuscripts.
This has always been my thought process, I think I needed someone else to confirm my thinking. “If the Bible says it, I believe it” is the mantra of so many in our pews, I have already argued with colleagues and others about this being two different stories, two different occasions and locations. I am beyond delighted to hear your take…and thank you so much for adding your thoughts to mine so quickly! Thank you, thank you.
Everytime you say something like "But that’s not really what this story is about," I know I'm about to read something fresh and thought provoking that will take me to a new place. You did it again.
In my secular studies of Palestine during Jesus lifetime, I discovered the fact that Rome had found the Jews a troublesome people and what worked best for Rome was to let the Jews rule themselves and do what they wanted to as long as Rome got their taxes. So yes, paying taxes to the Romans was a huge issue and not to be minimized, but that and having Roman soldiers walking around was about it. As far as taking fish from the Sea of Galilee, it would have been too difficult to keep the fish from rotting to take them to Rome. With Rome's dominance of the huge Mediterranean, including Northern Africa, why bother with fish from what was basically a big lake? However, this whole train of thought goes along with a push to make Jesus going against the Roman Empire. The problem is that it's just not there. Nowhere in the Gospels does Jesus criticize Rome. He even passes up a terrific opportunity to speak against Roman taxes when asked about it. He says, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's," basically saying, Caesar's face is on the coins so pay your taxes. Jesus did attack the religious leaders over and over for their hypocrisy. That is what got him crucified. And it is not anti-Semitism to say that. Pilot was just trying to keep unrest down. Why would he be afraid of a homeless itinerant rabbi, who spent most of his time in Galilee? Jesus was popular, but he preached peace and loving one's enemies, not going against Rome. Give me some scripture references where Jesus attacks Rome. Thanks for the chance to express myself! Keep writing! At least you make me head back to the Bible! 🥰
I apologize, my question/request is for the author/essay regarding the ancient manuscript that had "Martha" added to the story of Lazarus. I can't locate where I "saved" it. AsI grow older, I really miss my mind.
That's why there is a Cottage Archive. Go to the web version of The Cottage. Click on the menu item, "Archive." Put "Mary Magdalene" or whatever you're looking for in the search bar. And presto: There's your answer.
Archive access is part of your paid subscription. It is a super tool.
Diana , I have been subscriber to the cottage for several years. Busy with end of year things I realized on Sunday I have not received the cottage since 1st week on January. Could you check on that please
KGJohnson
Thank you for that thorough explanation
Thanks for this insight.
Thank you! I absolutely loved the choice of poems too!
This changes ~everything~!!!
I am wary of "upending" traditional interpretations without seriously taking into account the Gospel writer's intentions. Though much of his thought has been rendered obsolete, there is still wisdom in Albert Scweitzer's warning against pressing our modern concerns into the life of Jesus. We can do that even when assessing what historical information we have abount the contextual times. Allowing for the sparsity of Gospel accounts, sticking to what is deemed essential to convey the Gospel writer's concerns, and given that by all accounts Jesus had spent time in Capernaum, I think it reasonable to assume that these guys were well aware of Jesus and something compelling about him and his words and activities, rather than some mezmerizing, divine power overwhelming them to drop everything. It's not even clear from the Gospel accounts that they deserted everyone or left them in the lurch. Well, in one passage they claim to have left everything. But the details are not clear. Again, we have to ask what the author is up to. That being said, there's plenty to ponder about the total reorienting of their lives from what preoccupied them to the call of God to orient their lives totally toward God and the Kingdom and ministry of our Lord. That same call comes to us within our lives of essential responsibilities, to assess what our priorities are and the total claim our Lord has on our lives. That call can come to us right where we are. The difference is to be up front and faithful in lives which bear unmistakeable witness to our Lord's claim on us.
Wow! Thank you! Once again, context is everything - and your sermon brings such fresh insight.
No doubt there is more than one way to interpret Jesus' call to the fishermen to follow him. Yes, when we follow Jesus, His way can be fulfilling and liberating . However, Jesus does, in other places, challenge people to make a sacrifice in following him. He said "Take up your cross and follow me," more than once. Also, it had to be at least some sacrifice for those fishermen to leave wives and families. I think the problem comes when Christian leaders try to guilt people into serving God. Jesus challenged people and still challenges us but that is not the same as putting guilt on others. I love to be challenged by a good sermon, but I hate it when pastors get legalistic or resort to guilt to get people to act. The Holy Spirit can challenge in a loving way that causes one to want to follow and that, I believe, was how Jesus worked.
Thank you for musings on this text. I too have always felt there wasn't much good news in the traditional evangelistic interpretation. The historical and cultural research of Ched Meyers and others helps us understand the context so much better. No one had ever asked Simon, Andrew, James or John what they wanted to be when they grew up. Career choice was not a thing in the ancient world. As a peasant, you worked the fields your parents and grandparents had, and fished in the off-seasons if you could get a license to do so, all in order to keep body and soul together. Jesus was the first one to offer these people an alternative to eking out a living from the leftovers of Caesar's trickle down economics.
A member of my congregation sent me this poem by Steve Garnass-Holmes (unfoldinglight.net). The focus on leaving behind the nets that entangle and enmesh proved to be a catalyst for my sermon.
Jesus, Quiet One,
your call is not just the seashore challenge
to change my vocation.
You call every moment,
every conversation, every choice.
You whisper gently,
“Here. Come with me. This way.”
Am I radically open to your nudging,
ready to go an unexpected way?
What entangling nets must I let go of,
what habits and comforts must I leave behind,
what familiar safety net must I forgo,
what that I thought I knew
will I have to cease to know?
What nets have me?
Here, now, Beloved, draw me out. Set me free.
Working without a net.
Just your presence, your quiet, your love.
I love "Binding the Strong Man."
I LOVE how you turned a VERY familiar narrative on its head. Your use of culture and history allowed me to hear Jesus' words in a completely different light. Thank you!!
Fantastice insight and writing. Thank you Diana.
Thank you, Diana, for yet another fresh look at a well-known passage (or at least I thought I knew it well). You opened up a more nuanced understanding. Anything I wrote about this passage is being retired. I am grateful for your continued work to bring fresh insight into our life in Christ.
Diana, After attending the Southern Lights Conference, and listening to Libby's fantastically amazing story and research, I am now curious about the story of Mary...repeated in Luke re: the tears on Jesus' feet and the wiping of them with her hair, and the passage in John which identifies her as the Mary who did that. Seems contradictory, how do you feel about those two passages identifying Mary?
(Luke 7:36-39, 47 and John 11:2) I would surely appreciate hearing your take.
The Luke passage is, most likely, similar to the Mary/Martha story in Luke, a different person. She's NEVER identified in Luke. NEVER. The Luke story most likely took place in northern Israel, the John story took place in Bethany, near Jerusalem. Two different locations and timelines.
From what I understand, the earliest church did not conflate the two women and the identification of Luke's woman as Mary Magdalene didn't begin until Gregory the Great did so in the 6th century. Most historians agree that the Pope was the first to clearly identify the "sinful woman" in Luke with Mary Magdalene and attempt to harmonize the two passages. Remember: Luke never names the woman.
John does, of course, identifies an anointing by a clearly names Mary in Bethany, who Libbie and others is Mary Magdalene (the Eastern Church has always identified Mary of Bethany in John 11 and 12 as Mary Magdalene). In short: Two gospels, two stories, two different women. Pretty easy, really. I don't know anything about the status of the text in ancient manuscripts.
Dear Diana,
This has always been my thought process, I think I needed someone else to confirm my thinking. “If the Bible says it, I believe it” is the mantra of so many in our pews, I have already argued with colleagues and others about this being two different stories, two different occasions and locations. I am beyond delighted to hear your take…and thank you so much for adding your thoughts to mine so quickly! Thank you, thank you.
Blessings,
Elizabeth
You're welcome!
Everytime you say something like "But that’s not really what this story is about," I know I'm about to read something fresh and thought provoking that will take me to a new place. You did it again.