Blind Man’s Testimony

Because I was born blind I didn’t know
I was until they told me I was blind.

I used to sit beside my father in
the synagogue, pressed close against his side,
his arm around my shoulder. Once he let
me touch the velvet-covered Torah as
it passed, guiding my hand in his.

I never made bar mitzvah — couldn’t read,
and didn’t have the heart to memorize.
Still, how I loved the synagogue, especially
the prophets’ words. A few years back I heard
a man read from Isaiah and — I swear —
I thought the words would come true then and there:
“sight to the blind,” he said. Well, one can hope.

When I grew up, I earned my bread by sit-
ting on the corner, holding out my hand.
They knew me in the neighborhood. It wasn’t
a bad living; once a rich young ruler
even put a gold coin in my hand —
a small one, but so heavy next to coppers.

From time to time discussions would take place
about my blindness and its possible cause.
All above my head — in every sense!

Then, of course, one day that man called Jesus
happened by. He said that he was light.
He put mud on my eyes and sent me to
the pool to wash it off. And then I saw.

What was it like to see at first? It looked
like trumpets sound on New Year’s Day, ram’s horn
and brass; it looked like gold feels in the hand —
I think I told you that I felt it once;
like smiles feel on my fingertips. It looked
like velvet felt that time my father, my
small hand in his, pressed it against the Torah,
and the jingling silver sounded round
my ears. A bit like that.

                                       Funny, though,
that when I got back to the street, though I
could see, the neighbors didn’t recognize me.
Scholars grilled me, called my parents, wouldn’t
take my word. And finally they kicked
me out.

              Do I miss the synagogue?
I miss the New Year’s trumpets; miss the Torah
scroll, its velvet cover and the silver bells.
I miss the prophets’ words. I miss
my parents.

                     But I do not miss the end-
less questions on my blindness; I
don’t miss the corner of the street or my
old “friends” and neighbors; I don’t miss the heat
and street-smells and the ache of outstretched arm
and empty hand.

                             Besides, I saw that man —
the one that said that he was light? He was,
you know. He was the one who gave me sight,
just like the prophet said. He is my Torah
now, my New Year’s Day, my gold, my light,
my father and my God.

Tobias Haller BSG
May 16, 2008

---

Courtship

The California Supreme Court decision on the issue of same-sex marriage includes this observation:

While retention of the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples is not needed to preserve the rights and benefits of opposite-sex couples, the exclusion of same-sex couples from the designation of marriage works a real and appreciable harm upon same-sex couples and their children.

One would think this to be a simple and obvious fact. Yet the foul cry has already gone up that such a broadening of recognition will in fact have impact upon either those mixed-sex couples already married, or those who might contemplate it. I'm sorry, but this begins to sound a bit like, “I don't want to be part of a(n) _________ that allows _________ to join.” Fill in the blanks as you will. It also begins to sound an awful lot like some couples want “special rights” reserved, rights and privileges that only apply to them and not to other couples. Stay posted as the effort to write these special rights into the California Constitution presses forward.

Meanwhile, it appears that, yes, Virginia, you are not alone in wanting to maintain your diocesan authority and trusteeship (in the name of The Episcopal Church) over Episcopal churches. According to a report from Episcopal Café, a whole slew of other churches (and the other dioceses in the state) have joined those already in the Diocese of Virginia's Friends List. They make a compelling case that state intrusion into the inner workings of any church constitutes an unconstitutional interference with the religious right to order a church according to its own beliefs and doctrines. Again, stay tuned for what is bound to be an important court decision.

Tobias Haller BSG

Thought for 05.15.08

Charitable feelings are of no use
without acts of charity.
Compassionate feelings are of no use
without acts of compassion.
Loving feelings are useless
unless they lead to acts of love.
The Priest and Levite may well have felt sorry
for the wounded man
as they steered a course past him,
and the Samaritan who stopped to help
may have been muttering
under his breath
at the inconvenience
the whole time.
How they felt
was immaterial to the wounded man.

Tobias Haller BSG

On the Island of Silence

Once upon a time there was an island far out in the sea on which none of the people ever spoke a single word or made a single sound. No one knows why this was — it could be that those who first colonized the island lacked the ability to speak, or perhaps had nothing to say! But the present inhabitants, though capable of speech, had long since forsaken it, and instead communicated with each other by means of facial expressions and gestures, in which, over time, they had developed considerable eloquence.

One day, a ship was blown off course and the seafarers happened upon this island. As the captain grounded his storm-tossed ship upon the beach, he saw a native of that place in the forest not far off, and called out to him. The man standing among the trees looked this way and that, as if unable to locate the source of the sound. Eventually after repeated calls from the captain and others of the crew, the man on the shore recognized where the sound was coming from. His eyes widened in horror and his eyebrows almost rose off his forehead, and then he averted his gaze with a frown of disgust, and gestured with both hands as if to push the ship back out to sea. He then turned and disappeared into the forest.

The crew were astounded at this reception, but debarked and went in search of fresh water. Before long they stumbled into the village that served as the metropolis of the tiny island. But everyone to whom they tried to speak greeted them with the same look of horrified astonishment and gesture of disgusted dismissal. It soon became apparent to the seafarers that they were the topic of much and lively discussion — though they could understand none of it, as it was all conducted in the silent language of the island. Had they understood they might have saved their lives. For this is what the islanders were saying about them.

How have we offended our gods that they should visit such a tribulation upon us? These people, if we can call them people, have not the least sense of discretion or decorum about them, and however much we tell them to stop their indecent behavior they keep it up — openly and shamelessly using the organ the gods have given us only for the purpose of nourishment — whereon our very lives depend — using this sacred organ of life for, well, one supposes it can only be called a kind of “communication,” as they appear to be able through this perversion of nature to carry on a limited form of conversation among themselves, and even seem to be trying — the gods forbid it! — to draw us into this vile imitation of social intercourse.

Some few of you say that they should be gagged to stop this outrage, or that their tongues should be cut out, since they have so misused them. But the consensus is instead that such halfway measures will not serve. Therefore, let us do away with these monsters before their corruption infects us, lest any of our young people be tempted so to misuse the lips and tongue the gods have given us to eat and drink and taste with, to practice this obscene parody of “language.” Bind them up quickly, and let them be slain and buried under a heap of stones, that our children and our children’s children may know in the days to come of our love for our gods, and our obedience to the sacred traditions handed down to us.

And so it was that the islanders preserved their way of life, and the unfortunate seafarers met their end.

---

Saturday satire from Tobias Haller BSG

For Julian, At Day’s End

Augusta has fond thoughts concerning Julian of Norwich, but even fonder thought concerning Tuna of Sandwich. She is well aware that all will be well, and all will be well, and all manner of thing will be well — but is also wondering when the dinner bell will toll.

Thought for 05.05.08

I realize that I am at times like the annoying child for whom “Because!” is an insufficient answer to my persistent question “Why?”

Tobias Haller BSG

Impossible Things

Andrew Brown writes:

...The ordination of women priests was bought on credit, and the church can’t ever pay down more than the interest on the bill. When women priests were ordained, the Church of England was only held together, to the extent that it was, by both sides making solemn promises that they didn’t believe they would ever be called on and had no real intention of delivering. In particular, the supporters of women priests solemnly promised that there would always be an honoured place for their opponents within the church, even though they thought of the arrangements as entirely transitional; in return the opponents solemnly declared that women priests were legally and validly priests, even though they did not believe this could possibly be true. They still don’t.

Anglicans (and Episcopalians) have long engaged in such wishful thinking, which often turns out to be of the Red Queen variety: believing six impossible things before breakfast. Since the Elizabethan settlement, and the inclusion of two diametrically opposed eucharistic theologies in the same liturgy, this has shown a certain genius, as, in fact, the hot issues of one generation tend to cool with time, to the point that few today would quibble about the exact nature of the presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, and I doubt that anyone is denied ordination on the basis of his or her understanding of the exact mechanism by which (or if) this happens.

Sometimes, however, Anglican Fudge grows not only cold, but stale with time, and crumbles. The ordination of women hasn't rested long enough, it seems -- and perhaps it is only logical with a matter that so touches on human identity, in which the world at large has moved so much more quickly than the church in recognizing the full humanity of women, and hence doesn't limit their activity in that world. Some still insist that "only men can be daddies" -- but then, of course, one presses on to ask what in heaven's name that has to do with being a priest, since any priestly fatherhood is purely spiritual, and not based on a complement of testosterone, nor indeed if one is an actual daddy or not. (Isn't it odd that the church that has most resolutely stuck by an all-male priesthood also generally disallows the one thing for which a male is undeniably needed? All dressed up and no place to go, it seems, is the order of the day. Of course, they also hypostasize "maleness" into all other sorts of things, but then that precisely avoids the question of daddyhood, doesn't it? It seems it isn't only Anglicans who manage their share of Impossible Fudge, most definitely with nuts.)

Can we continue to live in an ecclesiastical ambiguity on this matter -- or must the lots be cast to Justus or Matthias. One notes that in spite of the Apostles' concern to fill Judas' seat, nothing was heard further from his successor once the Spirit actually came to pour out grace "on sons and daughters... menservants and maidservants" alike. Perhaps it is taking us this long to realize the wisdom of the prophet Joel in this regard, in spite of Peter's having cited him. What did Luke record Jesus saying on the road to Emmaus? "Ye foolish men and slow of heart to believe the prophets..." Sounds familiar. More fudge, anyone?

—Tobias Haller BSG

(Hat Tip to Thinking Anglicans)

Embodied Fel(in)icity

or,we are not abused.

Augusta Victoria muses on the latest on Human Rights from the Archbishop of Canterbury.

She is chiefly concerned with the question of Feline Rights, and whether she possesses them due to her feline embodiment, or because she is a feline by virtue of descent from other felines. What, she wonders, does embodiment mean since her body changes day by day, as large quantities of Friskies (consisting of things for the most part once part of other entities such as plants, fish, and even other mammals) are incorporated into her present embodiment, while other portions of that body pass out in exchange, as anyone who has tended her Box o' Litter can attest? (The amount of fur gathered from carpets, sofas, and armchairs in the past year is sufficient to constitute another entire cat.) Moreover, since early adolescence she has been missing one particular portion of her body, and does not feel, in spite of this having rendered her incapable of passing along her own bodiliness to subsequent feline generations, any less feline.

She applauds the Archbishop's observation that "liberty is not to be silenced, not to have my body reduced to someone else's instrument." Feline rejection of the notion of "petitude" has long been noted, and disdain for relatively "canine" behavior -- revealed by Scripture as cause for exclusion from the Kingdom of God (Rev 22:15)* -- forms a large part of the long-noted hostility between those species.

Still, the question arises as to whether Feline Rights are innate (based on existence as a Feline Being) merely on account of embodiment as a feline, or the recognition of that fact by another entity, be it Human or Dog. The Archbishop seems to suggest this as a criterion when he states that

Rights belong not to the person who can demonstrate capacity or rationality but to any organism that can be recognised as a human body, at any stage of its organic development.

This seems to shift the embodiment away from the body itself into the subjective perception of it by some other entity, and that entity's ability to "recognise" the individual in question as human; or in this case, feline. As the very earliest embryonic forms of feline and human are barely distinguishable except by the application of sub-microscopic analysis of DNA sequences, it would appear then that rights ought not be governed merely by "embodiment" -- or by an even more abstruse concept of "recognized embodiment" (surely a receptionist suggestion) -- but rather use as a point of reference the principle of descent from other humans -- or felines; if, that is, one wishes to address the reality of the fluid nature of embodiment at all its stages of life.

Meanwhile, her expression appears to indicate that, like another monarch, she is not particularly amused by either my or the Archbishop's speculations, and is wondering when the next tin of poultry byproducts will be offered.

Tobias Haller BSG

____________________
*This does not apply to Clumber and other beloved Dogs.

Highest Degree of Communion Possible...

... before it melts

The Archbishop of Canterbury's office has sent an e-mail to Bishop Robinson telling him he won't be allowed to preach or exercise priestly ministry in England. This is not the first time such admonitions have been issued. Though the part about preaching seems a tad dodgy canonically, as far as priestly ministry goes, this is all in keeping with the English rules on such things. As an openly gay and partnered person, Gene could not be ordained to the priesthood in the Church of England under its current laws. (Of course, it is the openness and honesty that is the problem here; Lord knows there are many gay partnered clergy, and even a few bishops, gracing C of E pulpits and sanctuaries; and when I say, "Lord knows," I really mean He does, and I don't know who these folk think they are fooling.) In any case, that's why he would not be allowed to function as a priest at present. He is in much the same position women priests from abroad were in before the C of E permitted the ordination of women to the priesthood.

Some have found Rowan's action to be harsh and unnecessary. Others have asked about how doing this in an e-mail tallies with the English equivalent of Miss Manners. It does seem that Rowan is handling the situation ham-handedly -- and, I might add, in a way that will actually serve the progressive cause and create a myriad of press opportunities and reports.

Hmmm... Perhaps not so ham-handed after all?... What if Rowan is just letting things play out as they will, and allow the wrong to condemn itself, the absentees to absent themselves, those who are willing to assemble to assemble, and find a way forward? Perhaps Rowan is wise after all to know that those who will not sit at table, and eventually walk away from it, weren't interested in it in the first place. Could Rowan be exercising the wisdom of the willow?

In the long run, perhaps the one showing how to maintain the highest degree of communion possible — putting up with exclusion and denigration, yet offering to do as much as he can in patience and civility and fellowship — is Gene Robinson. He is modeling how the Communion ought to work, in willingness to engage with those who would seek to expel him from it. He is showing the way to true Communion modeled on Jesus' teaching not to judge others. Hopefully, before it melts.

Tobias Haller BSG

Spicy

(hat tip to Jane R)

You are Cayenne! You're known for your dry wit, saucy remarks, and ability to stimulate (take that however you want). People in hot climates like you for your ability to make them sweat, but you're also quite good for people all over the world. Just don't mention your cousin, deadly nightshade.

The Which Spice Are You Test

This Meeting is Now In Secession

In a recent statement to the clergy and parishioners of "the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin" its bishop made the following observation:

I want to remind you that in spite of the claims by The Episcopal Church, nothing in their current Constitution and Canons prohibits a diocese from leaving one province and moving to another.

This is correct as far as it goes. Nothing in the Constitution and Canons of TEC explicitly forbids a diocese removing from the church and transferring to another, just as nothing in the US Constitution expressly forbids a state leaving the Union to align with another country. That matter was dealt with by the Supreme Court (Texas v White, 1869). The court found that the underlying importance of the concept of the "union" of the states literally "goes without saying." The same is true of the union of the dioceses in The Episcopal Church.

The Constitution and Canons of TEC make ample provision for the division, creation, and merger of dioceses, and for the cession of territory from one diocese to another. (The original dioceses were contiguous with the states, and in fact were called "states" in the earliest versions of our Constitution.) But it goes without saying -- and isn't said -- that no diocese is free simply to detach itself from the "national church" without the permission of that church through the General Convention in "union" with which it becomes part of the Church in the first place.

The only provision in our Canons for diocesan autonomy from TEC applies to missionary dioceses outside the territorial boundaries of the United States, and then only with the approval of General Convention.

Tobias Haller BSG

AKMA on Seabury

Has anyone else noticed how much James Lloyd Breck, instrumental in the founding of what eventually became part of Seabury-Western, resembles John Cleese. — Tobias

Added, for reference purposes, an early photograph of Breck attempting to return an item at the Nashotah General Store.

The Church’s Treasury

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG
Diocese of New York Warden’s Conference / April 26 2008
Cathedral Church of Saint John the Divine
Proper 24: For Vocation in Daily Work
Eccl 3:1,9-13; 1 Pet 2:11-17; Matt 6:19-24
Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.+

I could briefly summarize today’s readings as: Don’t Worry be Happy, Be a Good Citizen, and Try Not to Make too Much Money. The first is better known in its Latin version, Carpe diem; the second — Be a Good Citizen — is sound advice as long as one lives in a good city.

It is the third, Try Not to Make Too Much Money, that appears directed at those who serve the church. Church wardens are volunteers, so you never expected to “live by the church;” but even the clergy who do — because the rectory is often next-door, are only very rarely embarrassed with riches. The matchbook-cover promise, Go to School to Increase Your Earning Power, doesn’t apply to seminary. Rather, the church compensates its clergy based on the biblical command to leave the threshing ox unmuzzled — as well as on a short leash and moving in circles.

So devoting your life church work, on a stipend or as a volunteer, is a good way to follow our Lord’s advice not to lay up treasure on earth.

+ + +

If, that is, we are talking about the kind with images of politicians, in various denominations. But there is another kind of treasure more beguiling than folding green. And it exists in various denominations, too: Episcopal, Roman Catholic, Lutheran.... It is a treasure the church and its workers are tempted to store up, perhaps compensating for getting less of the kind with a politician’s image and likeness: whether Tiberius Caesar or Andrew Jackson. It is the treasure of stable security, of becoming an institution.

Saint Peter shows this at work; he counseled good citizenship so the church could survive in the Empire. But the Empire soon got so bad that good citizenship became impossible for Christians, forced to choose between Christ and Caesar.

Those who had counseled obedience found themselves re-evaluating — Peter ended up crucified head-down; and Paul must have reconsidered the wisdom of appealing to Caesar’s justice when he faced Caeser’s sword. The apostles learned they could not serve two masters — Christ and Caesar — though too late to leave epistles to that effect.

Imperial persecution clarified the church’s vision as only the hangman can — to see that survival on Caesar’s terms was not worth it, and the time had passed for playing goody two-sandals. So, strange as it may sound, thank God for Caesar, who gave the church something to stand up to, something to stand up for. Persecution reminded the church of its mission: not to survive by ceasing to be itself — but to spend itself for the life of the world, as its Lord had done.

Caesar reminded the church that those who seek to save their life will lose it. Caesar reminded the church that it was the body of Christ — Christ crucified under Pontius Pilate, who suffered death and was buried, and only then was raised from the dead. Christ set the pattern for the church: Only by losing life can life be saved; only what dies can be raised again.

+ + +

Since those fiery days, the world’s animosity towards the church has cooled to chilly toleration. And how has the church responded? How does the church expend its energy these days, now that Caesar no longer persecutes? Isn’t most of the church’s warfare these days internal? Where is the church’s treasure being spent — on outgoing mission, or ongoing questions of self-definition? Is the church laying up treasure in heaven, safe from moth and rust and thieves — or squandering its resources on ecclesiastical mothballs, Rustoleum, and burglar alarms?

It happens in parishes, national churches — it even happens in cathedrals... so I’m told! The focus shifts from mission to talk about mission, from vision to the vision statement. When this happens, the church’s vision is obstructed by the bulk of its own precious self, and the church abdicates its title as a wonderful and sacred mystery and verges on becoming an institution like any other. Preoccupied with survival rather than with mission, it resigns its role as bride of Christ and becomes more like Miss Havisham in Great Expectations, the wedding banquet transformed into a shuttered room whose lonely inhabitant tries to preserve a past that never was.

+ + +

Am I exaggerating? Think of the resources spent on the present Anglican Communion disagreements. The Episcopal Church treasures the Communion, and rightly so — but here is an opportunity to reform and revive the very thing we treasure if we are willing to set aside preoccupation with its structure for a time to focus on its purpose: to develop a Covenant not based on who’s in and who’s out — but upon the mission we share to a suffering world, with the Communion as a vessel well-suited to bear the good news to the ends of the earth — because it’s already there!

We are called and commissioned to risk what we treasure, to spend ourselves for the sake of the gospel, in a gospel fashion. It is not that we don’t need structures and vessels, but that they are means to an end, not ends in themselves. We are meant to use them, and sometimes lose them. Indeed, we are called to lose our very lives and thus to save them; for only what dies can be raised; only what is spent can be redeemed. True wealth, after all, is revealed in what you spend, not in what you possess. The church is most truly itself when it spends itself with an abandon that matches the liberality of the spendthrift Christ — Christ who gave himself up on the cross, who spent himself completely, and all for the love of his bride, the church.

What a perfectly mad young couple, who store up no treasure, spend all they have on each other — but having each other need nothing else. You know the story: she cut off her hair to buy him a watch-fob; he pawned his watch to buy her a comb — gifts, in their purchase, rendered useless — yet infinitely precious.

What, then, is the church’s true wealth? Only Christ, and him crucified. And what is his treasure? He has told us how much he values each of us poor fragile creatures as chosen and precious. As Solomon’s old love song tells it, sung in a Christian key: Christ is our treasure, and we are his.

+ + +

Long ago, a good deacon faced Caesar, who demanded the church’s treasures. Expecting gold and silver, how angered he was when the deacon assembled the poor and said, This is the church’s treasure.

We members of Christ’s body are the church’s treasure still, because treasured by Christ, because we are where his heart is. And no moth, no rust, no thief can touch us. We are Christ’s treasure, and this holy place — and all of the parishes from which we come to gather here — are God’s treasuries. Don’t you ever let anyone tell you they are just institutions. And don’t you ever let anyone make them so. You who teach and you who learn, you who worship and you who proclaim, you who administer and steward and care for the fabric of these vessels, keep your vision clear, always turned to the needs of the world that the church is called to serve. Carpe diem: Seize the day — the time is now. Christ is risen and has given us the greatest treasure — given himself into our hands, fragile treasures of bread and wine that feed and strengthen us to spend ourselves in Christ’s service.

May we now and ever spend ourselves freely, all of us, who bought by Christ, are free to serve — Christ’s treasure on earth as he is ours in heaven.+

---

A Disharmony of the Synoptic Gospels

A project I undertook while in seminary. Perhaps others may find it useful. Open to correction, addition, and other observations!

Unique Pericopes, Incidents
either Present In or Missing From the Synoptic Gospels
Regular font = Present only in that Synoptic Gospel
Italic = Missing only from that Synoptic Gospel

Matthew	Mark	Luke
	No genealogy	Prologue to Theophilus
		John the Baptist background; Annunciation; Visitation; Birth of John the Baptist
Birth Narrative: Joseph’s Dream; the Magi; Flight to Egypt; return to Nazareth	No Birth Narrative	Birth Narrative: Census, trip to Bethlehem; no room in the inn; shepherds and angels; circumcision and presentation; Child Jesus in the Temple
		John the Baptist’s preaching to tax collectors and soldiers
Jesus’ baptized to fulfill all righteousness		Holy Spirit descends on Jesus; fills him in the wilderness
	No description of temptations	No angels ministering to him in temptations (cf. Gethsemane)
Ministry in “Zebulun and Naphtali”
		Synagogue teaching from Isaiah; “Physician, heal thyself”; examples of widow and Naaman
No demoniac in the synagogue; or account of departure from Capernaum
		The miraculous catch of fish
Sermon on the Mount Fulfillment and expansion of Law: murder, adultery, oaths; almsgiving; prayer, fasting; pearls before swine	No extended teaching; no Beatitudes; no turn the other cheek; no Lord’s Prayer; no “judge not” nor Golden Rule, nor Narrow Gate; nor concern for anxiety; nor serving two masters; nor treasures in heaven; nor good tree with good fruit; nor “calling me “Lord, Lord”; nor “house built on sand”	Sermon on the Plains
	No centurion’s servant
The paralytic isn’t lowered through the roof; Jairus isn’t named
Healing of two blind men, and a man with a mute demon
The Twelve are told not to go the Gentiles or the Samaritans; Fate of disciples warning here rather than in eschatological discourse	No mention of “more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah”; nor exhortation to fearless confession	Instruction to eat what is set before one
	No teaching on division in households, or conditions of discipleship (hating ones’ family)
“Who receives you receives me...”
	No questions from John, nor encomium on John by Jesus
	No woes to the Galilean towns; or thanksgiving to the Father for “concealing from the wise”
Comfort to the heavy-laden
Priestly profanation of the Temple on the Sabbath
	No reference to an ox or sheep falling in a pit on the Sabbath
Citation of Isaiah’s servant song
		Woes to the rich and the full and those who laugh, and those well-spoken of
	No “hearers and doers”
		Widow’s son at Nain
		The woman with the ointment at the Pharisee’s house
		The women who ministered to Jesus
	No “sign of Jonah” or “red skies or clouds”
	No evil spirit returning to the empty house
Citation of Isaiah on hardness of understanding (re parables)	No blessing of disciples for seeing and hearing
“The Weeds and the Wheat” and its interpretation	“The Secretly Growing Seed”
“The Hidden Treasure” and “The Costly Pearl” “The Net” and “The Wise Scribe’s Treasures”	No “Woman with Leaven”	No “he said nothing without a parable”
No final instructions to the Gerasene demoniac
No “Who touched me” concerning the woman with a hemorrhage
		No extended description of John the Baptist’s death
Peter’s attempt at walking on water		No walking on water, or healings at Gennesaret
		No “what defiles is from within”
		No Gentile woman (Canaanite or Syrophoenecian)
Healing of a multitude	Healing of a man deaf and mute
		No feeding of the 4,000
		No berating the disciples for not understanding about the bread
	The blind man of Bethsaida (“trees walking”)
“You are Peter, and on this rock...”		No effort by Peter to stop Jesus, nor rebuke of Peter for doing so
		Disciples drowsy during the Transfiguration
	Long description of the boy with seizures, the “deaf and dumb spirit”
The Temple Tax from the fish
No exorcist “not one of us”
		No “if your hand offends” or “if your eye offends”
	No “The Lost Sheep”
What you bind on earth... 70 times 7 times “The Unmerciful Servant”	No “reproving one’s brother” or process for reconciliation	7 times
	No “foxes have holes” or conditions of discipleship	Samaritan opposition
		Appointment of the 70 and their return
		“The Good Samaritan” Mary and Martha “The Importunate Friend”
	No “ask, seek, knock”	Blessedness of the womb and breasts who bore Jesus
	No discourse against Pharisees
		“The Rich Fool”
	No reference to the servant found watching on the master’s return	The servant’s reward
		Fire on the earth
	No settling out of court
		Teaching on the Galileans and the victims of the Siloam accident: “The Fig Tree”
		Healing of the bent woman
	No parable or comment on exclusion from the kingdom, though there will be “first and last”
		Departure from Galilee at the Pharisees’ warning about Herod
	No lament over Jerusalem
		Healing a man on the Sabbath
		Teaching on humility at a banquet
	No parable of the great supper No “Lost Sheep”	“The Lost Coin” “The Prodigal Son” “The Crafty Steward”
	No “the law shall not pass away”
		“The Rich Man and Lazarus” A servant is not served Healing of Ten Lepers The Kingdom not coming with signs to be observed “The Persistent Widow” “The Pharisee and the Publican”
“The Laborers in the Vineyard”
Mrs. Zebedee seeks preferment for her sons
	No “The Ten Talents”
		Prediction of Jerusalem’s destruction
		No cursing of the fig tree or teaching on faith and prayer
“The Two Sons” “The Wicked Tenants” interpreted	No “Marriage Feast”
	The scribe confesses the superiority of the Summary of the Law
Criticism of offering regulations	No extended woes against the Pharisees
No widow’s mite
Prediction that false prophets will arise; “The Bridesmaids” The Last Judgment	No “day of the Son of Man”; nor “Watchful Householder” or faithful servant in attendance	“Your redemption is drawing near”; Watch at all times
		No, “one of you will betray me” or “Is it I”
		Earnest desire for the Passover
	No promise of reigning in the world to come
		The two swords; Peter’s charge after being sifted
	Double withdrawal in Gethsemane; imperative to God: “Remove” since all is possible; “Abba”	In the garden, no specific reference to Peter, James and John with Jesus in prayer, simply “them”; so “sorrowful soul” Single incident of finding them asleep
“Ten legions of angels”	No command to put away the sword, or healing of the priest’s servant’s ear
	The young man flees naked	No reference to the disciples fleeing in fulfillment of scripture
		No account of failure to find testimony against Jesus, or false witnesses
The repentance and death of Judas
		Pilate does not question Jesus’ silence, and “finds no fault in him” and sends Jesus to Herod, who returns him to Pilate
Pilate’s wife warns him to have nothing to do with Jesus		The people propose Barabbas
Pilate washes his hands, and the people accept responsibility		Pilate states he has found no crime worthy of death
		No mocking by soldiers
		The Women of Jerusalem The “Good Thief” No “My God, my God” or sponge with sour wine “Into your hands...”
The resurrection of the saints		This man was innocent
The guard is set over the tomb	Pilate is surprised he is already dead	The women rest on the Sabbath
The earthquake and the angel	“Who will roll away the stone”; the young man	Two men ask why they seek the living among the dead
Jesus meets the women on the way, and tells them to have the disciples meet him in Galilee	The women do not tell the disciples what they saw from fear	The women tell the apostles, but they don’t believe [Some texts have Peter run to the tomb and see the shroud]
The bribing of the soldiers, and the false story of the body’s theft	The end of the best text of the Gospel omits any resurrection appearances	The road to Emmaus; and appearance in Jerusalem
In Galilee, Jesus commissions the Apostles to baptize all nations		Jesus ascends into heaven.

Tobias Haller BSG