Today’s show is now posted for you! As I guest hosted The Patrick Madrid Show on Relevant Radio (I’m here all week, folks!), we talked about everything from exploring evidence for Jesus’ Resurrection, to the relative merits of the Beatles, to the Minnesota bishops’ decision to re-start public Masses.
What an epic Thursday it was! Listen to (or download) today’s show (and all this week’s episodes) here:
All this week I’ll be guest hosting The Patrick Madrid Show on Relevant Radio (9AM—Noon Eastern, Mon-Fri). Join us! you can listen live on RelevantRadio.com, or via the Relevant Radio App. Shows will also be archived for later listening at RelevantRadio.com/Patrick.
On today’s show, we celebrated the centenary of the birth of St John Paul II. I was joined live on this program by Cardinal Thomas Collins, Archbishop of Toronto, as well as Fr Rocky Hoffman, CEO of Relevant Radio, who shared their thoughts on the life and legacy of Pope St John Paul “The Great”. You can listen to (or download) today’s show here:
Cale refutes the implausible theory that the real reason Jesus’ tomb was empty was that his disciples stole his body.
Katherine Arcement, writing in the Washington Post two years ago today, which marked the centenary of the first Marian apparition in Fatima:
The Virgin Mary appeared to the children on May 13, 1917 as “a lady dressed in white, shining brighter than the sun, giving out rays of clear and intense light,” dos Santos wrote. She promised to come to the children on the 13th of each month.
Jacinta told her mother about it. While her siblings joked about the apparition, her alarmed mother hauled her in front of their parish priest to recant. She would not.
News of the visions spread by word of mouth, and the following month a small crowd waited with the children to witness the second apparition June 13. At the third sighting, on July 13, the children said the Virgin Mary revealed three secrets to them about the future.
Interest in what was happening in Fatima grew more intense.
On Aug. 13, the children were taken into custody by a state bureaucrat, who took them by car to Vila Nova de Ourem in hopes of getting them to recant their testimonies. Again, they would not.
Thousands of people began streaming to Cova da Iria, the site of the Virgin Mary apparitions. On Sept. 13, 30,000 people were present when dos Santos said the Virgin Mary told her, “In October I will perform a miracle so that all may believe.”
On that day, Oct. 13, 1917, the crowd of believers had swelled to 70,000.
About 2 p.m., some began to see what later became known in the Catholic Church as “the Miracle of the Sun.” The rains that had plagued the day ceased, and the sun emerged from behind clouds to spin and tremble for 10 minutes.“Before the astonished eyes of the crowd, whose aspect was biblical as they stood bareheaded, eagerly searching the sky, the sun trembled, made sudden incredible movements outside all cosmic laws — the sun ‘danced’ according to the typical expression of the people,” reported O Seculo, a Lisbon newspaper.
The strange phenomena included odd colors.
“Looking at the sun, I noticed that everything was becoming darkened. I looked first at the nearest objects and then extended my glance further afield as far as the horizon. I saw everything had assumed an amethyst color. Objects around me, the sky and the atmosphere, were of the same color. Everything both near and far had changed, taking on the color of old yellow damask,” said José Maria de Almeida Garrett, a science professor from Coimbra, Portugal, who was at the scene.
Onlookers from as far as 25 miles away noted the strange phenomena in the sky.
Following this event, the crowd and grounds, which had been soaked by those heavy rains, were, suddenly, bone-dry.
Of course, purely naturalistic theories have been proffered for the Miracle of the Sun, like this one, which, depending on one’s point of view, might require more faith to believe than that an actual miracle had occurred. Theories like these assume extreme gullibility on the part of those in attendance, including the secular publications which reported on these phenomena.
It should also be noted that the children were also threatened with physical torture by authorities (being boiled in oil) in an attempt to get them to recant, which they did not.
At any rate, it should be noted that no Catholic is required to believe in any Marian apparition — even those, like Fatima, Lourdes, and Guadalupe, that have been approved by the Church as worthy of belief. Why? Because they fall under the category of private revelation, whereas Catholics are only bound to believe in public revelation. Despite the fact that there have been public aspects to the events at Lourdes (the existence of the spring and healings), Guadalupe (the miraculous tilma), and, of course, Fatima, the associated supernatural apparitions and revelations were made to certain individuals. (I happen to think that there is convincing evidence to believe in these apparitions, but I’m not troubled if friends remain, for now, unconvinced).
Speaking of centenaries, this coming Monday, May 18th, marks the 100th anniversary of the birth of Pope St John Paul II, a towering figure of the 20th century who held that Our Lady of Fatima personally intervened to thwart the assassination attempt on his life made on this day in 1981. In fact, the Pontiff had the bullet, which came within millimetres of ending his life, placed within the crown of the statue of Our Lady of Fatima.
This frightening event was interpreted as the fulfillment of the “Third Secret” of Fatima which had been revealed to the children. The “First Secret” had to do with the end of WWI and the even greater destruction of WWII to follow; the “Second Secret” was a prophecy about the rise of Communism and the Soviet empire — an empire that John Paul II played a major role in dismantling.
Dr. Michael Barber, writing at The Sacred Page:
The notion that biblical Greek uses different terms for various kinds of love was popularized by C. S. Lewis’ book, The Four Loves (London: Geoffrey Bles, 1960). I will refrain from offering a full treatment. Let me focus on two terms: agapē and philia. According to Lewis, agapē love can be distinguished from philia love in that the latter refers to the love of friendship, while the former denotes something more: unconditional divine love. The official C.S. Lewis website sums up his views on this here. Writing about agapē, Lewis taught: “This is our chief aim, the unconditional love of the Father given to us through his Son.”
That Greek has clear words for different types of love sounds nice. It seems helpful. Unfortunately, it greatly oversimplifies things.
And, as Barber notes, things get rather complicated when this view is applied to Jesus’ restoration of Peter (following Jesus’ resurrection) in John 21:
When they had eaten breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love [agapaō] me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord. You know that I love [phileō] you. He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” He said to him again a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love [agapaō] me?” He sad to him, “Yes, Lord. You know that I love [phileō] you.” He said to him, “Feed my sheep.” He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love [phileō] me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love [phileō] me?” And he said to him, “Lord, you know all things. You know that I love [phileō] you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep.”
— John 21:15-17; my (Barber’s) translation
Interpreters often make much hay out of the fact that the word for “love” is different the third time Jesus asks the question. It is often claimed that Peter is hurt because the last time Jesus puts the question to him, he asks, “Do you phileō me?” Peter is said to be grieved because even though he realizes that he has not yet matured to agapē love for Jesus, he is nonetheless saddened to think that Jesus doubts that he at least has philia love for him.
This is not an uncommon interpretation. In a 2006 General Audience, for example, Benedict XVI offered this line of interpretation of this passage. I must confess that I was quite surprised by it when I first read it. Notably, he studiously avoids this line of explanation in his treatment of John 21 in the second volume of his Jesus of Nazareth trilogy, which he later published in 2011. This would not be the only time Benedict XVI’s explanations in his trilogy would depart from what he had said earlier in a General Audience. For example, his lengthy treatment of the date of the Last Supper in Jesus of Nazareth also omits a suggestion he had once made at a General Audience in 2006. (In Catholic theology, papal statements made in General Audiences are not viewed as infallible magisterial doctrinal definitions.)
Yet, I have to confess, it seems highly unlikely to me that the evangelist is making a big deal out of the fact that Jesus and Peter use different words for love here. Why? Because elsewhere these words are used interchangeably in John.
A few representative passages from John are then explored by Barber to make that latter point. As an aside regarding Benedict’s seeming agreement with the agape/phileo distinction in his 2006 talk: it’s not certain that his views changed over time, or that he ever held that view personally; it’s possible that an associate of Benedict may have had a hand in composing this General Audience talk (it’s a common practice). It’s far more likely that the 2011 Jesus of Nazareth book reflects Benedict’s actual view on the passage, as that series of books was very personal to him, and unlikely to have been ghostwritten in any way.
Barber then returns to the John 21 passage to make the point that, even in biblical studies, often the simplest and most obvious explanation is the most likely. And here, it’s simply this: just as Peter denied Jesus three times (John 18), Jesus restores him three times (John 21). That’s it. Barber correctly notes that Peter’s hurt because of the third time Jesus asks Peter if he loves him, echoing Peter’s third denial (just as Jesus had prophesied).
Peter’s not hurt because he thinks Jesus has “downgraded” his expectations for Peter from unconditional, self-giving love (agape) to mere friendship (phileo), as if Jesus is saying, “I’ll take what I can get from you at this point, Peter. I know mere friendship is where you’re at with me right now, although I’m not even sure of that — but you’ll give your life for me later. You’ll get there.”
Barber also correctly points out that both events (Peter’s threefold denial and restoration) take place over a charcoal fire — the only two times that term, incidentally, is used in the New Testament.
So, preachers: no more bad homilies on this passage, K? You’ve been schooled.
By the way, Dr. Barber and his companions over at The Sacred Page (Dr. Brant Pitre, Dr. John Bergsma, and Dr. John Sehorn) are all great scholars, and are just killing it on their newly revamped blog. Go check it out; it’s well worth your time.
Cale shows how the hallucination theory does not explain the Resurrection of Jesus.
On this Feast of St Joseph the Worker, let’s take a look at where Jesus grew up, working with St Joseph. What kind of work, exactly, did they do, and what sort of projects did they work on? How did the place Jesus grew up influence his teaching? You might be surprised!
My favorite basketball player growing up was the legendary Larry Bird of the Boston Celtics. The media (and Larry himself) liked to play up his humble, small-town roots, dubbing him the “Hick from French Lick,” the small Indiana town where Bird grew up. He was just a kid from the sticks who made good.
For centuries, preachers have similarly accented the alleged small-town roots of Jesus. Nazareth, where Jesus grew up, is usually portrayed in homilies as a type of isolated backwater, far removed from the hustle and bustle of the empire.
Now, it’s certainly true that in Jesus’ day Nazareth was relatively tiny, with a population somewhere between 200 and 400. But recent archaeological excavations around Nazareth, which today is a relatively bustling city of about 60,000, have quashed the quaint myth that Jesus grew up among “country bumpkins” removed from major centers of commerce and culture.
One of the most important of these digs took place at Sepphoris, which is located about four miles north of Nazareth. Sepphoris, which Roman historian Josephus called “the ornament of all Galilee,” was the largest and one of the most important cities in the area. In fact, a highway linking the two other major regional centers—Caesarea Maritima and Tiberias—was not far from Nazareth and Sepphoris.
Considering its proximity to Nazareth, it’s highly likely that Jesus would have traveled to Sepphoris on many occasions. In fact, according to an early Church tradition, the Blessed Virgin Mary hailed from Sepphoris. One could easily imagine Jesus, Mary, and Joseph making the trip to see Jesus’ grandparents, Joachim and Anne, on many an occasion.
It is also possible that Joseph and Jesus worked in Sepphoris during its period of heavy expansion under Herod Antipas from 4 B.C. to A.D. 39. The Greek word tekton—which the Gospels employ to describe Jesus’ and Joseph’s occupation—actually means much more than “carpenter.” It refers to a highly skilled laborer who would have been proficient in working with stone as well as wood and other materials. (In fact, it is likely that Joseph and Jesus would have had architectural abilities as well. One might even say they were the equivalent of modern-day engineers.) Antipas had originally intended to make Sepphoris his headquarters, and he installed some beautiful architecture there in the Greco-Roman style, including magnificent colonnaded streets and an impressive theater (more on that later).
The Sepphoris excavations are also important for debunking a popular skeptical theory. The scholar (and ex-Catholic priest) John Dominic Crossan argues that, in his early life, Jesus came under the sway of itinerant Cynic philosophers in Sepphoris who greatly influenced his teaching. But excavations at the city dump have determined that, at the time of Jesus, Sepphoris’s inhabitants were anything but pagan.
Only in strata (layers of cultural remains in the earth, representing different eras) dated after A.D. 70 do we find pig bones and other evidence of Hellenizing influences, consistent with growth in the city’s non-Jewish population following the failed Jewish revolt of 66-70. It seems the citizens of Sepphoris in Jesus’ time kept to a kosher diet.
Furthermore, coins minted in Sepphoris prior to 70 do not depict the image of the emperor as a deity, which would have offended devout Jews, even though such currency was common elsewhere in the empire. After the year 70, this is not the case. Also, stone vessels and miqva’ot (ritual bathing pools) used for Jewish purification rites, as well as menorahs, have also been found from the pre-70 period.
In short, Sepphoris was in all likelihood a mostly—if not completely—Jewish city at the time of Jesus. It is therefore improbable that Jesus came under the sway of pagan Cynics during his early life in and around Nazareth. His teaching, like the area he hailed from, was thoroughly Jewish.
Sepphoris is also a potential boon for understanding and clarifying certain aspects of Jesus’ teachings. We know that Jesus was a master at pointing out profound lessons from the everyday world (for example, his many agricultural parables). I believe there is a high probability that Sepphoris was a part of that world and that it figures prominently in Jesus’ preaching—especially as recorded in the Gospel of Matthew. The “city set on a hill [that] cannot be hidden” (Matt. 5:14) may have been inspired by Sepphoris, which was elevated. Its evening lights would have been visible to the inhabitants of Nazareth.
Excavations at Sepphoris also reveal a splendid public theater, carved out of the local bedrock and initially seating about 2,500. Could it be that Jesus and Joseph worked on its construction? But Jesus’ references to “hypocrites” (Matt. 6:2, 5, 16; 7:5; 15:7; 16:3; 22:18; 23:13-15, 23, 25, 27-29; 24:51; Luke 6:42; 11:44; 12:1, 56; 13:15), an originally innocuous word that referred to “actors” or “play-actors,” may have been expropriated from the theater at Sepphoris. Jesus used the term to excoriate the people-pleasing, insincere piety of some scribes and Pharisees.
Jesus likewise admonishes his disciples not to practice their piety “before people, in order to be seen by them” (Matt. 6:1). The term translated as “to be seen” is the Greek word theathenai, from which we derive the English word theater. Jesus teaches his followers not to “be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, so that they may be seen by others” (Matt. 6:5). This may allude to an actor who stands and performs a soliloquy on stage.
In contrast, Jesus encourages us to live not for the applause of others but rather for the applause of One: God alone.
Church Fathers, such as St. Jerome, referred to the Holy Land as the “Fifth Gospel” because it helps put the life of Jesus in context. It helps us to understand many of Jesus’ teachings and activities. It also helps us understand how the four written, canonical Gospels are indeed trustworthy, because they exhibit verisimilitude—that is, that they cohere with the way things actually were in the Israel of Jesus’ day. That’s why archaeological discoveries like those at Sepphoris shed so much light on the teachings of Christ.
Note: This post was originally published as “Lessons From Big-City Jesus”.
Cale shows how the claim that the appearances of the risen Jesus were mere legends doesn’t hold water.
Cale explains the shockingly powerful message of the Gospel of Mark, a truly revolutionary document that changed the world. For more on this topic, see this post.
Cale discusses the Risen Jesus’ appearance to James (1 Cor 15:7).