Traces of Bar Kochba in the Lukan Prenatal Jesus Narrative (Luke 1)

It is my theory that the Lukan Prenatal and expanded Nativity/Early Childhood Jesus Narratives (Luke 1-2) each contain carefully calculated references to the aftermath of the Bar Kochba Wars. There appear to be contrasting comparisons between the state of Israel at the time of the writing itself, and the vision for better times which the author maintains in the light of messianic hopes attached to the birth of Jesus. 

The subtext seems to be that the downtrodden people of the diaspora should take solace in the thought that Jesus would succeed where Bar Kochba had failed. Now, among the survivors of the Bar Kochba War were those who had at one time pinned their hopes on the success of the militarized Jewish Independence Movement; only to be deported from their homeland after the Roman Army crushed the rebellion. The notion then that a baby born to a people in such desperate circumstances would somehow resolve their destitute situation must have initially seemed somewhat far fetched and fanciful. 

Yet the Lukan author carefully contrasted an underlying theme of despair and hopelessness; which included direct references to hunger, homelessness, and a diaspora, to a "with God nothing shall be impossible" theme (1.37), which in turn was demonstrated by the pregnancies and successful deliveries of an elderly barren woman (1.7,24-25,36,57); and a virgin (1.34-35; 2.5).

The very idea that God could bring forth life in such seemingly impossible circumstances would likely have been a message well received by the people of the post 135 CE Jewish diaspora; who were themselves without a homeland, helpless, and seemingly beyond hope. In the midst of such misery and despair, the promise of a messiah who would succeed where Bar Kochba had failed is a message which would surely been marketable to the downtrodden and defeated refugees of the diaspora. 

In this regard, Gabriel's speech to Mary (Luke 1.32-33)  may in fact have been a contrasting comparison between the defeated and deceased Bar Kochba and the soon to be born messiah Jesus:

-Jesus would be great; Bar Kochba was thought to be great until he was defeated

-Jesus; was the Son of the Highest; whereas Bar Kochba was called the Son of the Star

- Jesus would reign over the kingdom forever; whereas the reign of Bar Kochba was only 3 years 

Again, Mary seems a metaphor for post diaspora Israel (1.48-54); whose praise for God's mercy seems a mirrored mirage of the reality of their state of being after the Bar Kochba war:

- God's strength is demonstrated; Bar Kochba's weakness was revealed 

- God scatters the proud; the poor Jews were scattered after 135 CE

- God puts down the mighty from their seats; the mighty put down Bar Kochba and reassumed the seat of authority in Jerusalem 

- God exalts them of low degree; whereas the displaced Jews of the post Bar Kochba War diaspora, are at their lowest point since the Jewish Independence Wars had commenced in the 60's.

- God fills the hungry; many starved to death in the aftermath of the Bar Kochba War.

- The rich he hath sent away empty; those were sent away empty in 135 CE were the ones who became poor and destitute. 

- God has mercifully helped Israel; the homeless and nationless post 135 CE Israel was badly in need of merciful help wherever they could secure such. 

And again, the sentiment of nationalism in a state of exile seems to have been expressed in Zechariah's speech after his son John's birth (1.67-79):

- He praises God for visiting and redeeming his people.

- He references their enemies and all people that hate them.

- He refers to their state of being as sitting in darkness and in the shadow of death. 

Zechariah's statement that God would redeem his people could be the author's efforts to encourage the disenfranchised Jewish diaspora, whose desperate circumstances as exiled refugees is described as sitting in darkness and in the shadow of death.  As strangers in foreign lands, they would surely have been regarded as enemies and hated by many.   

Viewed as a collective then, these three speeches of the Lukan Prenatal Narrative seem to make calculated references to the destitute circumstances of the surviving diaspora of the Bar Kochba War. The underlying message being that of a reason to rejoice in spite of their seemingly dire straits by hinging their hopes upon a  messiah whose nature and whose destiny would differ significantly from that of the dead and departed failed messiah Simon Bar Kochba.

The Two Conclusions of NT Mark: A Case to Deconstruct the Text

The New Testament book of Mark is the most basic of the known Jesus narratives. Compared to the other Synoptic accounts, the material in the Markan narrative is minimalist and concise.  One perspective is that Mark might be a condensed version of Matthew and Luke.  Then again, Mark may be the earlier of the accounts, in which case the additional material in the others could be due to the development of the Jesus legend over the course of time.  Regardless, I personally find Mark to be the best source to ascertain the basic content of  the Jesus narrative.

The basic narrative thus being the tale of a young Hebrew itinerant preacher, who engaged in exorcisms and healings; and who likewise exerted mystical powers over nature, including the power over death itself. He quickly gained a following, and his popularity was such that at times he could not even find the time to eat when at home, leading him to withdraw to remote areas from time to time. Although popular with the masses, his liberal interpretation and loose application of Jewish teachings and traditions lead to disfavor with the Jewish leaders; who subsequently conspired with the Roman officials to have the hero of the narrative executed by crucifixion. Then, depending upon which of the two conclusions of the tale one chooses to accept; either a) three days after his death his grave was found empty, and one sole eyewitness claimed that Jesus had risen from the dead; or b) Jesus made several appearances to numerous disciples after rising from the dead on the third day after his crucifixion.  As the narrative asserts that Jesus claimed that he would rise from the dead on the third day, the implications of either documented conclusion have fascinated followers of the Jesus narrative for nigh unto two millenniums.  

It seems to me that the existence of two different endings to the narrative raises certain questions as to the composition of its content which merit serious consideration, separate and apart from the content of the material itself.  For example, why are there two endings?  Was the latter ending (16.9-20) a later rendition than the first ending (16.1-8)? What are implications of the two endings?  And perhaps the question most pressing in my mind relates to the credibility of the concept of an alleged united narrative, in the light of a fragmented finale.  In other words, since there are two different conclusions to this one single narrative, then can we reasonably assume that the narrative itself is a united text?

To my way of thinking, these questions are reasonable and relative to the study of the Markan narrative, in the light of the existence of two Markan conclusions. One popular means of dealing with the dual conclusion issue has been to gloss over the differences between the two accounts by writing them both into the text as a single conclusion.  Yet the end of the first conclusion account states that the women who fled the empty tomb were too afraid to tell anyone what they had seen, which would seem to contradict the account of the second conclusion that Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene.  The latter can hardly be reconciled with the former as a single conclusion since Mary Magdalene was one of the women who according to the first conclusion fled the empty tomb too afraid to tell anyone what they had seen.  Clearly then, these two conclusions are two different versions of the Jesus narrative.

My conclusion then with regards to the existence of the two conclusions of the biblical book of Mark is that it is therefore not reasonable to assume such to be a single narrative in and of itself, and furthermore that the entire text should be the subject of studious scrutiny as to its construction.  It is thus my personal perspective that there needs to be a reasonable yet critical analysis of the construction of the entire narrative itself, in order to be able to more accurately determine the nature of its composition.

Such an endeavor is for me in fact a work in process.