Undesigned coincidence: A sword shall pierce through thine own soul also
(Originally published at What's Wrong With the World. Link to original post at 'permalink' below.)
As we have discussed several times in threads here at W4, the infancy narratives in Luke and Matthew come in for a lot of unnecessary doubt from New Testament scholars. Michael Licona has even suggested that whatever is not overlapping in Luke and Matthew might be a "midrash" (aka made up), an embellishment on the far more minimal facts that Jesus was born in Bethlehem of a virgin named Mary espoused to Joseph. The many other facts reported in both Gospels may have been added, he suggests, to "create a more interesting narrative."
At the same time, the Gospel of John is also treated as some kind of a "problem child" for the historicity of the Gospels, because Jesus allegedly "sounds so different" in John and in the synoptic Gospels. But the difference between the presentation of Jesus in John and in the synoptic Gospels is overestimated by critical scholars.
Recently, Esteemed Husband was reading some passages to me from one of those neglected old books: Stanley Leathes, The Witness of St. John to Christ (1870). There are about twenty pages in this book (pp. 300ff) showing parallels between Jesus' manner, his methods, his ways of speaking, his personality, etc., in John and in the synoptic Gospels. It should be required reading for all seminarians, apologetics students, and others interested in New Testament studies. Some of the things Leathes mentions are also discussed in a useful blog post by NT scholar Rob Bowman, here, but Leathes has much more.
Leathes does not refer to what I'm going to discuss here as an undesigned coincidence, but it comes up in one of his parallels between John and the synoptic Gospels. It thus serves as a twofer, providing evidence against the idea that Luke made up the unique portion of his infancy narrative as mere imaginative embellishment and against the idea that John used "creative artistry" concerning Jesus' crucifixion.
Jesus' presentation in the Temple is unique to Luke. It contains the prophecies uttered by Simeon and the praise of Anna. Simeon and Anna are two elderly people who have been waiting for years in the Temple precincts in the hopes of seeing the Messiah. They both believe that the infant Jesus is the fulfillment of their hopes. Simeon utters the nunc dimittis, which is now a standard part of the liturgy:
Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word: For mine eyes have seen thy salvation, Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people; A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel. Luke 2:29-32
Simeon turns to Mary, Jesus' mother, and utters the following prophecy:
Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against; (Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also,) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed. (Luke 2:34-35)
Iconography and hymnody (e.g., the Stabat Mater) have memorialized this prophecy and have connected it, quite understandably, with Mary's presence at the foot of the cross.
It is, in fact, the only intimation of suffering anywhere in Luke's infancy narrative. As I pointed out here, the angel Gabriel's glorious prophecies at the annunciation that the child will reign on the throne of David argue for the faithful reproduction in Luke of authentic information concerning the Annunciation. For if the story were embellished, one would expect the prophecy of the angel to be more muted in the light of hindsight--less Jewish, in fact. As it stands, it would certainly lead Jesus' mother to expect only a grand, successful future for her son. Something similar can be said of the Song of Zechariah, which could readily be taken to imply that John the Baptist will usher in a time of peace and safety for his people the Jews. Of course, this did not occur.
The one tiny hint that there might be sorrow in the future comes in the cryptic words of Simeon to Mary--"A sword shall pierce through thine own soul also." But what does this mean?
It would be easy to overlook the fact that Luke does not record Mary's presence at the cross. This is all the more remarkable since Luke seems particularly interested in the perspectives of certain women. It is Luke alone who lists the names of the women who followed Jesus out of Galilee (Luke 8:2-3). Luke alone mentions Joanna in connection with the resurrection (Luke 24:10), and he talks about a larger number of women who went to the tomb than are mentioned by any other evangelist. Only Luke tells the story of the sinful woman who anointed Jesus' feet (Luke 7). But Luke either was not aware or chose not to mention that Jesus' mother was present at the cross.
If we take Luke by itself, the prophecy of Simeon is left hanging out in the wind, with no clear fulfillment. Later, in Acts 1 and 2, we learn that Mary was still alive after Jesus' ascension, for Luke mentions her presence with the disciples praying before the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. So Luke apparently knew that Mary lived through the time of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection. But this is quite indirect. Luke certainly does not emphasize any fulfillment of Simeon's prophecy of her sorrow.
If Luke wrote the story of the presentation in the Temple as a pious embellishment on a much more meager handful of known facts, then presumably he made up Simeon's prophecy to foreshadow Jesus' death. But one wonders in that case why he would not even have mentioned Mary's presence at the foot of the cross, and perhaps even emphasized it in some way that would draw attention to his own cleverness in putting these ominous words into Simeon's mouth. Suppose that we take it that Mary was present at the cross; Luke might have conjectured as much even if he didn't know it for sure. That Luke should leave out a true and antecedently plausible fact that would serve to make a nice literary pattern with an invention of his own in the infancy narrative would be very odd. Is Luke a restrained, understated author who doesn't take even minimal trouble to fill out his literary patterns, or is he a "midrashic" embellisher who adds plenty of non-factual material to "make a more interesting story"? The critic can't have it both ways.
On John's side, we can say with confidence that, at least, he did not add Mary's presence at the cross in order to fulfill the prophecy in Luke, since he does not report that prophecy. John may have had access (I tend to think he did have access) to Luke's Gospel, but in the many coincidences he shares with Luke he seems to take no trouble to include both sides of the story. Here, John explains Luke, by including Mary among those at the foot of the cross, but he does so casually, as always, with no appearance of attempting to explain anything. We might even say that John reports Mary's presence at the cross because he knew and remembered it vividly, because he (as the Beloved Disciple) was there, and because Mary was committed to his care, and he took her to his own home, just as the Gospel reports.
It is a sign of the poverty of critical theoretical methods that critical scholars are incapable of recognizing the unstudied accuracy of the evangelists.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment