Jesus' friends

1. Undesirables

Mark 2:15-17

While Jesus was having dinner at Levi's house, many tax collectors and "sinners" were eating with him and his disciples, for there were many who followed him.
When the teachers of the law who were Pharisees saw him eating with the "sinners" and tax collectors, they asked his disciples: "Why does he eat with tax collectors and `sinners'?"
On hearing this, Jesus said to them, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

Luke 7:34/Matthew 11:19

The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and you say, `Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and "sinners."'

Above is one passage from Mark and another from the Q source. Both agree on a major point: Jesus mixed with the undesirables of his world and looked on them favourably. Prostitutes ("sinners") and tax collectors were despised in the 1st century (and they still are today in most places...).

Jesus also speaks highly of these people elsewhere, in passages unique to Luke and Matthew:

Luke 18:10-14

"Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector.
The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: `God, I thank you that I am not like other men--robbers, evildoers, adulterers--or even like this tax collector.
I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.'
"But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, `God, have mercy on me, a sinner.'
"I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."

Matthew 21:28-31

"What do you think? There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first and said, `Son, go and work today in the vineyard.'
"`I will not,' he answered, but later he changed his mind and went.
"Then the father went to the other son and said the same thing. He answered, `I will, sir,' but he did not go.
"Which of the two did what his father wanted?" "The first," they answered. Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you.

2. A woman who anoints Jesus

This story appears in several different forms in the Gospels. Here are all three versions:

Mark 14/Matthew 26
3 While he was in Bethany, reclining at the table in the home of a man known as Simon the Leper, a woman came with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, made of pure nard. She broke the jar and poured the perfume on his head.
4 Some of those present were saying indignantly to one another, "Why this waste of perfume?
5 It could have been sold for more than a year's wages and the money given to the poor." And they rebuked her harshly.
6 "Leave her alone," said Jesus. "Why are you bothering her? She has done a beautiful thing to me.
7 The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want. But you will not always have me.
8 She did what she could. She poured perfume on my body beforehand to prepare for my burial.
9 I tell you the truth, wherever the gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her."
Luke 7
36 Now one of the Pharisees invited Jesus to have dinner with him, so he went to the Pharisee's house and reclined at the table.
37 When a woman who had lived a sinful life in that town learned that Jesus was eating at the Pharisee's house, she brought an alabaster jar of perfume,
38 and as she stood behind him at his feet weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears. Then she wiped them with her hair, kissed them and poured perfume on them.
39 When the Pharisee who had invited him saw this, he said to himself, "If this man were a prophet, he would know who is touching him and what kind of woman she is--that she is a sinner."
44 Then he turned toward the woman and said to Simon, "Do you see this woman? I came into your house. You did not give me any water for my feet, but she wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair.
45 You did not give me a kiss, but this woman, from the time I entered, has not stopped kissing my feet.
46 You did not put oil on my head, but she has poured perfume on my feet.
47 Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven--for she loved much. But he who has been forgiven little loves little."
John 11
1 Six days before the Passover, Jesus arrived at Bethany, where Lazarus lived, whom Jesus had raised from the dead.
2 Here a dinner was given in Jesus' honor. Martha served, while Lazarus was among those reclining at the table with him.
3 Then Mary took about a pint of pure nard, an expensive perfume; she poured it on Jesus' feet and wiped his feet with her hair. And the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume.
4 But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected,
5 "Why wasn't this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year's wages."
6 He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.
7 "Leave her alone," Jesus replied. "[It was intended] that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial.
8 You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me."

Notes:

There are few common elements to this story: a woman anoints Jesus with perfume during a dinner. The differences are striking:
(1) Only in Luke is the woman a 'sinner'.
(2) The venue is different in each story.
(3) Mark has Jesus' head anointed, Luke and John has his feet.
(4) The issues are different - in Mark and John the disciples complain that the perfume could have helped the poor. In Luke Jesus' host complains that the woman is a 'sinner'.
(5) The woman is named only in John.

On closer inspection, it is clear that the similarities are between between Luke and John (the action of anointing), and between Mark and John (the resultant issue). However only the most basic elements are common to Mark and Luke. It appears that John may have synthesised the Mark and Luke stories. John also seems to have included Luke's story about Mary and Martha:

Luke 10:38-42

As Jesus and his disciples were on their way, he came to a village where a woman named Martha opened her home to him.
She had a sister called Mary, who sat at the Lord's feet listening to what he said.
But Martha was distracted by all the preparations that had to be made. She came to him and asked, "Lord, don't you care that my sister has left me to do the work by myself? Tell her to help me!"
"Martha, Martha," the Lord answered, "you are worried and upset about many things,
but only one thing is needed. Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from her."

Compare this with John 11:2-3. Luke 10:42 also bears some resemblance to Mark 14:26.

However, it is far from clear that the author of John was aware of Luke. Some have suggested that John knew and used Mark - there is some evidence for this view - but this story would form the only evidence that John knew of Luke's gospel. It seems more likely that somewhere along the line the story from Mark and the two from Luke were intermeshed, not necessarily by the author of John.

It is interesting to ponder why Luke ignored Mark's version of the story. Luke almost certainly had a copy of Mark in front of him while he wrote his gospel, so why did he not use this story? It is impossible that Luke would have altered Mark's version this much to suit his own needs. Luke does edit Mark to some extent, but is generally faithful to his source. I suggest that when Luke possessed another version of a story which was already recorded in Mark then he used this second version instead of the Mark version. We see this in the Beelzebub controversy story. Luke has ignored all of Mark's version and relied soley on the Q material (see note 1). Luke also ignores Mark in favour of Q for Jesus' teaching on divorce (see note 1). Luke's version of Jesus baptism also plays down the Mark contribution in favour of Q and his own unique material. We can only guess at why Luke would have made these choices. In the present case his choice fits well with Luke's high interest in people (rather than issues) in his gospel. The point of the story is forgiveness and acceptance. Mark's version focusses on more impersonal issues - money, poverty and symbolism.

It is clear that Luke and Mark tell two totally independent accounts of the same event (some would say that they are two different events - I consider this to be less likely). We can confidently assume that the basic elements of this story are historical - they really happened. The details may be uncertain (I favour Luke's story as being most historical), but what we can be sure of still provides us with an evocative picture of one person's response to Jesus during his life.

3. The 12 Apostles

It has been suggested that the existence of the disciples is poorly attested in the gospels. It is true that the Q material never uses the word 'disciple' or 'apostles', but we can confidently assert that the Q material did contain reference to the twelve: here are the texts referring to the selection of the twelve:

Mark 4
16 These are the twelve he appointed: Simon (to whom he gave the name Peter);
17 James son of Zebedee and his brother John (to them he gave the name Boanerges, which means Sons of Thunder);
18 Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot
19 and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.
Matthew 10
2 These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon (who is called Peter) and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John;
3 Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus;
4 Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.
 Luke 6
13 When morning came, he called his disciples to him and chose twelve of them, whom he also designated apostles:
14 Simon (whom he named Peter), his brother Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew,
15 Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Simon who was called the Zealot,
16 Judas son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.

The versions are quite similar, but with two notable differences:

(1) Matthew and Luke both add that Andrew is Simon's brother. Matthew is otherwise virtually identical to Mark. He leaves out the Boanerges bit, and adds that Matthew was a tax collector (understandable given that this Gospel was ascribed to him), but retains everything else.
(2) Luke omits Thaddeus and includes Judas son of James. John's Gospel also mentions this Judas (John 14:22). Luke also contains more subtle changes: Simon "who was called" the Zealot; Judas Iscariot, "who became a traitor"; no mention of the relationship between James and John.

In line with the argument outlined in the previous section, the evidence points to the existence of a source other than Mark, which Luke follows more closely than Matthew. Both Luke and Matthew have obviously used Mark, but Luke is prepared to deviate from Mark in favour of the second source.

Back