Category: Bible History

A reader writes:

I know there is a different explanation, but when reading the biblical account of Zachary’s not understanding the angels message about John the Baptist, and Mary’s not understanding about when the angel told her about Jesus, they seem the same.  Yet, Zacahry was punished while Mary was praised.  I’m curious about how to explain this to non-Catholic friends who look for "holes" in Catholic teaching, and sometimes the bible itself.

And Zechari’ah said to the angel, "How shall I know this? For I am an old man, and my wife is advanced in years." And the angel answered him, "I am Gabriel, who stand in the presence of God; and I was sent to speak to you, and to bring you this good news. And behold, you will be silent and unable to speak until the day that these things come to pass, because you did not believe my words, which will be fulfilled in their time" [Luke 1:18-20].

And Mary said to the angel, "How shall this be, since I have no husband?"
And the angel said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God. And behold, your kinswoman Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son; and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren. For with God nothing will be impossible."
And Mary said, "Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word." And the angel departed from her [Luke 1:34-38].

[Elizabeth:] "And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfilment of what was spoken to her from the Lord" [Luke 1:45].

1. We are not meant to understand the praise of Mary as a contrast to Zechariah. It’s simply praise made without reference to his situation. The difference of the signs they are given is just part of the mystery of God’s providence and is not meant to be understood as a punishment or criticism of Zechariah’s response.
2. We are meant to understand that Mary is being praised and favorably treated in comparison to Zechariah, but this is due to something not captured, or fully captured, in the text, such as a inward disposition on Zechariah’s part in comparison to Mary’s inward disposition.
3. We are meant to understand a contrast between the two but there is something about the two situations that makes Mary’s reaction more reasonable than Zechariah’s. For example, it might be argued that what is being proposed in Mary’s case requires a far greater leap of faith (a birth with no man involved) in comparison to what is being proposed in Zechariah’s (a birth past the normal age). Thus it might be more reasonable for Mary to ask questions up front than it was for Zechariah, and when these questions were answered, she was ready to believe.
4. We are meant to understand a contrast between the two and the text does hint at the basis for the contrast. For example, Zecharaiah asks a different question that Mary does. Zechariah asks the angel for a sign to prove it to him ("How will I know this?"), whereas Mary only asks for an explanation ("How will this be?"). Taken on their faces, Mary’s question is more open to the miraculous than Zechariah’s is. She is more ready to believe, and thus she is praised for this. One might even assert (consistently with the text though not required by it) that she had already believe what the angel said when she asked her question. She was just wanting clarification of the means by which it would happen rather than demanding proof that it would.

Hope this helps!

A reader writes:

I know there is a different explanation, but when reading the biblical account of Zachary’s not understanding the angels message about John the Baptist, and Mary’s not understanding about when the angel told her about Jesus, they seem the same.  Yet, Zacahry was punished while Mary was praised.  I’m curious about how to explain this to non-Catholic friends who look for "holes" in Catholic teaching, and sometimes the bible itself.

And Zechari’ah said to the angel, "How shall I know this? For I am an old man, and my wife is advanced in years." And the angel answered him, "I am Gabriel, who stand in the presence of God; and I was sent to speak to you, and to bring you this good news. And behold, you will be silent and unable to speak until the day that these things come to pass, because you did not believe my words, which will be fulfilled in their time" [Luke 1:18-20].

And Mary said to the angel, "How shall this be, since I have no husband?"
And the angel said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God. And behold, your kinswoman Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son; and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren. For with God nothing will be impossible."
And Mary said, "Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word." And the angel departed from her [Luke 1:34-38].

[Elizabeth:] "And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfilment of what was spoken to her from the Lord" [Luke 1:45].

1. We are not meant to understand the praise of Mary as a contrast to Zechariah. It’s simply praise made without reference to his situation. The difference of the signs they are given is just part of the mystery of God’s providence and is not meant to be understood as a punishment or criticism of Zechariah’s response.
2. We are meant to understand that Mary is being praised and favorably treated in comparison to Zechariah, but this is due to something not captured, or fully captured, in the text, such as a inward disposition on Zechariah’s part in comparison to Mary’s inward disposition.
3. We are meant to understand a contrast between the two but there is something about the two situations that makes Mary’s reaction more reasonable than Zechariah’s. For example, it might be argued that what is being proposed in Mary’s case requires a far greater leap of faith (a birth with no man involved) in comparison to what is being proposed in Zechariah’s (a birth past the normal age). Thus it might be more reasonable for Mary to ask questions up front than it was for Zechariah, and when these questions were answered, she was ready to believe.
4. We are meant to understand a contrast between the two and the text does hint at the basis for the contrast. For example, Zecharaiah asks a different question that Mary does. Zechariah asks the angel for a sign to prove it to him ("How will I know this?"), whereas Mary only asks for an explanation ("How will this be?"). Taken on their faces, Mary’s question is more open to the miraculous than Zechariah’s is. She is more ready to believe, and thus she is praised for this. One might even assert (consistently with the text though not required by it) that she had already believe what the angel said when she asked her question. She was just wanting clarification of the means by which it would happen rather than demanding proof that it would.

Hope this helps!

A reader writes:

I have a question for you (who doesn’t). As a facilitator in the RCIA program at my parish I’ve realized that my biggest scriptural and historical weakness is the history of the Jewish people. I can tell you all about the Jewish people of the 1st century and the history of the Catholic Church but I fall surprisingly short when it comes to Old Testament history. I definitely need to learn more about this to be an effective evangelizer (is that a word? [yes, it is–Jimmy]) and teacher.

I plan to re-read Genesis and Exodus. I think that will be a good start to learn about the beginnings of our Jewish ancestors. Beyond that, I was curious if you know of any books (or anything else for that matter) that would help me in learning the history of the Jewish people. I’m also looking for something with as many references to scripture as possible. I was hoping that there is an equivalent to "Triumph" by H. W. Crocker III (which I thought was excelent by the way) but for the Old Testament Jewish people.

Of course I’m looking for something Orthodox, not something the Jesus Seminar would be happy with.

Do you know of anything that would help me in learning more in this area?

I’d recommend three things:

1. Don’t stop at Genesis and Exodus. Read all of the historical books of the Old Testament. In fact, read the whole Old Testament. In fact, read the whole Bible. Four chapters a day will get it done in a year.
2. If you’d like a book summarizing Old Testament history from a traditional perspective, I’d recommend A History of Israel: From the Bronze Age Through the Jewish Wars by the Evangelical scholar Walter Kaiser. (Though I see the one copy they have at Amazon at the moment is quite expensive. I’d check with other vendors to see if they have it.)
3. I’d also recommend a book about the life and institutions of ancient Israel by the Dominican scholar Roland de Vaux. It will help you understand what’s going on in the history of Israel better. Since it’s about ancient Israel’s life and institutions, it’s called Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions. Good stuff!

Hope this helps, and God bless!

Several readers have sent me links to stories announcing the indictment of Oded Golan, et al., for antiquities fraud.

Golan, you may remember, was the (initially anonyous) guy in Israel who claimed to own an ossuary of St. James that mentioned Jesus. Golan is also charged with being involved in a conspiracy that falsified artifacts of interest to the Jewish faith as well (e.g., an ivory pommegranate and a tablet linked to the Temple).

It very well be true that Golan has been involved in a conspiracy to commit fraud, and I would be quite happy to see the ossuary inscription and those on the other items proved to be forgeries (nobody doubts that they are ancient; the question is whether the inscriptions, or parts of them, are).

But I know something about the politics of antiquities in Israel, and I would not take the indictment, or even the conviction, of people in an Israeli court as proof positive of forgery. (I’d look more to the scholarly community to settle that matter.) The Israeli government has been known to manipulate situations involving antiquities to its own advantage, and the following is a real possibility:

Golan said in a statement Wednesday that "there is not one grain of

truth in the fantastic allegations related to me," and that the

investigation was aimed at "destroying collecting and trade in

antiquities in Israel."

Archaeology is a highly politicized field in Israel, and the officials in charge of the Israeli antiquities authority are so untrustworthy that some archaeologists are leaving some holy sites deliberately unexplored archaeologically lest, if they were opened up to that, the Israeli officials drop an ancient Jewish artifact on the ground and then use it as a pretext for seizing control of the whole site. Owners of sites of historical interest to Christians (inlcuding one of the Stations of the Cross in Jerusalem) have been unable to get Israeli courts to defend their property rights when they have been forcibly taken over by Israeli citizens. It would not be beyond the realm of possibility that the Israeli government would choose to use a fraud case to destroy the reputation of an archaeological link to Jesus.

So the point is, I don’t know who is lying here.

Maybe both parties are.

I’m skeptical both of the box and of the Israeli officials’ charges against it.

Because of how highly political the situation is, though, I should note that my skepticism on this matter does not mean that I am "against Israel" or "on the side of the Palestinians" or anything like that. I’m not on anybody’s side over there. Being skeptical of the Israeli antiquities officials does not mean one is anti-Israel or pro-Palestinian. It’s just a recognition of the situation.

That being said, if Golan and his associates are guilty of fraud, I want them locked up for a long time as a warning to others. Messing with the world’s knowledge of its archaeological patrimony is a horrible crime against history and, in the case of biblical archaeology (Jewish or Christian), it’s a crime against religion.

GET THE FIRST STORY.

GET THE SECOND STORY.

Several readers have sent me links to stories announcing the indictment of Oded Golan, et al., for antiquities fraud.

Golan, you may remember, was the (initially anonyous) guy in Israel who claimed to own an ossuary of St. James that mentioned Jesus. Golan is also charged with being involved in a conspiracy that falsified artifacts of interest to the Jewish faith as well (e.g., an ivory pommegranate and a tablet linked to the Temple).

It very well be true that Golan has been involved in a conspiracy to commit fraud, and I would be quite happy to see the ossuary inscription and those on the other items proved to be forgeries (nobody doubts that they are ancient; the question is whether the inscriptions, or parts of them, are).

But I know something about the politics of antiquities in Israel, and I would not take the indictment, or even the conviction, of people in an Israeli court as proof positive of forgery. (I’d look more to the scholarly community to settle that matter.) The Israeli government has been known to manipulate situations involving antiquities to its own advantage, and the following is a real possibility:

Golan said in a statement Wednesday that "there is not one grain of
truth in the fantastic allegations related to me," and that the
investigation was aimed at "destroying collecting and trade in
antiquities in Israel."

Archaeology is a highly politicized field in Israel, and the officials in charge of the Israeli antiquities authority are so untrustworthy that some archaeologists are leaving some holy sites deliberately unexplored archaeologically lest, if they were opened up to that, the Israeli officials drop an ancient Jewish artifact on the ground and then use it as a pretext for seizing control of the whole site. Owners of sites of historical interest to Christians (inlcuding one of the Stations of the Cross in Jerusalem) have been unable to get Israeli courts to defend their property rights when they have been forcibly taken over by Israeli citizens. It would not be beyond the realm of possibility that the Israeli government would choose to use a fraud case to destroy the reputation of an archaeological link to Jesus.

So the point is, I don’t know who is lying here.

Maybe both parties are.

I’m skeptical both of the box and of the Israeli officials’ charges against it.

Because of how highly political the situation is, though, I should note that my skepticism on this matter does not mean that I am "against Israel" or "on the side of the Palestinians" or anything like that. I’m not on anybody’s side over there. Being skeptical of the Israeli antiquities officials does not mean one is anti-Israel or pro-Palestinian. It’s just a recognition of the situation.

That being said, if Golan and his associates are guilty of fraud, I want them locked up for a long time as a warning to others. Messing with the world’s knowledge of its archaeological patrimony is a horrible crime against history and, in the case of biblical archaeology (Jewish or Christian), it’s a crime against religion.

GET THE FIRST STORY.

GET THE SECOND STORY.

Batman has his Batcave and Batmobile. The Pope has his popemobile. What did John the Baptist have? Maybe the Baptistcave.

Maybe.

According to a new story, someone is claiming to have identified a cave purported to be used by John the Baptist in the first century to perform baptism.

Maybe.

Not probably. Just maybe.

Every few years a story like this one appears in the press about Evangelicals who think they’ve found Noah’s Ark on Mt. Ararat in Turkey.

Believe me, I’d love for this one to pan out. I’d love to see the gents in question get together a competent expedition, get the necessary permissions, go to the site, and bring back solid proof of Noah’s Ark.

But I’m not holding my breath.

We don’t have, and never have had, any guarantee that Noah’s Ark or identifiable pieces of it have survived the ages. In fact, if I were Noah, one of the first things I would do after emerging from the Ark–before even planting a vineyard–would be to dismantle the Ark for building materials. In a world with four men, no chainsaws, and no lumberyards, the Ark could be too valuable for its raw materials to simply leave in one piece for future generations.

All the guys the article talks about really have (at best) is some satellite images showing some kind of wooden structures on the mountain (and there is even dispute about whether the location described by Genesis corresponds to the modern Mt. Ararat). Who is to say at this point that they won’t go up there and find the ruins of a few huts that are clearly post-diluvian. In fact, if they find anything, that’s probably what they’re going to find.

While I wish them well, the gents’ getting all this advance publicity worries me. If they fail (as they are likely to), it can embarrass the Christian cause. The worst of all worlds would be for them to go up, retrieve some wood that they loudly proclaim to be proof of Noah’s Ark, only to have the "proof" fall apart under laboratory examination.

Let’s pray that doesn’t happen.

Every few years a story like this one appears in the press about Evangelicals who think they’ve found Noah’s Ark on Mt. Ararat in Turkey.

Believe me, I’d love for this one to pan out. I’d love to see the gents in question get together a competent expedition, get the necessary permissions, go to the site, and bring back solid proof of Noah’s Ark.

But I’m not holding my breath.

We don’t have, and never have had, any guarantee that Noah’s Ark or identifiable pieces of it have survived the ages. In fact, if I were Noah, one of the first things I would do after emerging from the Ark–before even planting a vineyard–would be to dismantle the Ark for building materials. In a world with four men, no chainsaws, and no lumberyards, the Ark could be too valuable for its raw materials to simply leave in one piece for future generations.

All the guys the article talks about really have (at best) is some satellite images showing some kind of wooden structures on the mountain (and there is even dispute about whether the location described by Genesis corresponds to the modern Mt. Ararat). Who is to say at this point that they won’t go up there and find the ruins of a few huts that are clearly post-diluvian. In fact, if they find anything, that’s probably what they’re going to find.

While I wish them well, the gents’ getting all this advance publicity worries me. If they fail (as they are likely to), it can embarrass the Christian cause. The worst of all worlds would be for them to go up, retrieve some wood that they loudly proclaim to be proof of Noah’s Ark, only to have the "proof" fall apart under laboratory examination.

Let’s pray that doesn’t happen.