Epilogue

For the Curious

For those who wonder how much of this comes from my fevered brain, and how much is actually there in the Bible or other historical sources, first of all, let me say that Nathanael is mentioned only in the Gospel of John, and in only two places: in the recounting of how Philip meets him and takes him to Jesus, who says he saw him "under the fig tree," at which Nathanael blurts, "Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!" and at the end, when Nathanael is one of those who goes fishing with the Rock in the episode of the miraculous catch.

Bartholomew is only mentioned in lists of the Emissaries (Apostles), usually next to Philip, which has led scholars to assume that, since it is a patronymic (Son of Talmai), Bartholomew is another name for Nathanael.

So we know next to nothing about him as such. He became a candidate for the Deadly Sin of sloth (laziness) in this series of novels, based solely on the fact that Philip found him sitting under a fig tree and on his reply when Philip told him he had found the Prince: "Can anything good come from Nazareth?" Not much to hang a novel upon.

I decided to make his laziness due to the fact that he was rich, but had had a severe fright in his childhood, and that his father was a martinet, who scared him into never thinking he could do anything right, and so not attempting anything. I also gave him a yearning for everything to make sense. I gave him a black slave to be able to bring in the complication of racial and slavery issues. Ezra is, of course, completely fictional.

Note that the order of the incidents I narrate is not the same as that in the Gospels; it is dictated by the needs of the novels (it is, of course, consistent among them). The order in the Gospels is undoubtedly not chronological either, but is based on their purpose of showing how Jesus is the Son of God--which does not make them false, any more than a lawyer makes up evidence when he arranges it convincingly. So I felt free to do what I wanted in this respect.

Note also that I refer to the Synoptic Gospels or simply the Synoptics. The three Gospels of Mark, Luke, and Matthew (I believe, written in that order) have similarities that can only be explained by the fact that the later authors were editing the earlier ones. "Synoptic" means "seen together." See my The Synoptic Gospels Compared.

In any case, all of Chapter 1 and everything in Chapter 2 except the characters Thomas and Philip (which as characters are fictional, of course) are fictional, as is everything in Chapter 3. In Chapter 4, Nathanael reads Psalm 38. In Chapter 5, he reads Psalm 139, and then there is the historical episode of Philip's telling him about Jesus and his meeting with Jesus. Of course, everything beyond the mere meeting was made up.

In Chapter 6, the finding of Thomas is fiction, as is the meeting with Jesus in Chapter 7, as well as everything that happens in Chapters 8 - 10 (the other Emissaries and Mary are, of course, historical people, fictionalized). In Chapter 11, the wedding at Cana is reported by John, though everything is fiction except the miraculous transformation of wine into water. Chapter 12 is also fiction, except for the fact, reported later by John, that Judas was the group's treasurer. Judas's theory about Jesus is what a skeptical intellectual of the time would have said, based on the latest scientific (i.e. philosophical) evidence. It has a strong resemblance to the theories of some Scripture scholars today.

In Chapter 13, the episode of driving the buyers and sellers from the Temple is from Chapter 2 of John (the other evangelists put it or a similar incident at the end of Jesus' public life, probably because they put all events in Jerusalem there); the allusion to Nicodemus is from Chapter 3, what follows until the end of Samaria is from Chapter 4, and the episode in the synagogue in Nazareth is from Luke.

In Chapter 14, of course, there is no historical evidence that Matthew was in the synagogue. The call of Matthew is related in Matthew, and that same incident (it seems evident) is related by the other Synoptics (Mark and Luke) as the call of Levi. The soldier, who figures heavily in the Matthew novel, turns out to be the one who crucified Jesus. He is, of course, purely fictional, except that some soldier did it.

In Chapter 15, the story of the Pharisee and the tax-collector is from Luke, though of course, there is no evidence that Matthew was the tax-collector. The cure of the paralytic is in all three Synoptics. In Chapter 16, the raising of the son of the widow of Nain is only in Luke. Of course, David and all that he does is fictional. The feast at Matthew's house is mentioned in all three Synoptics, but what happened there (especially the incident of the dogs) is totally fictional, except that people were wondering that Jesus was consorting with tax-collectors and sinners.

In Chapter 17, the death of Joseph is not mentioned in the Bible, but it is implied, since he does not figure in the public life of Jesus at all. The centurion's son in Cana is from John. Of course, that Longinus was the messenger is fictional. The Sermon on the Mount is from Matthew and Luke (I gave Luke's version). Nathanael did not hear all of it. There is a hint that Matthew's version comes from his asking Jesus to explain himself. Jesus's preaching from a boat is recorded by the Synoptics, but the episode of the girl falling overboard and Nathanael's rescue of her is fiction.

In Chapter 18, the students are voicing my own attempts at what the meaning of the Sermon on the Mount is. They may be as far off as I perhaps am. The sending of the emissaries (by the way, "apostle" means "emissary") is in all three Synoptics. They reported cures such as the ones I made up involving Nathanael. The rich young man is in all three Synoptics also, as is the incident at Philip's Caesarea, and the first prediction of the Passion.

In Chapter 19, the incident at the Bethesda Pool is from John. The visit to Martha and Lazarus is fiction, though they are mentioned in Luke (at least Martha is) and John. The fact that Mary is not there is explained in the Magdalene novel. The story of the rich man and Lazarus is from Luke. Since it is the only story in which he used a name, and since Lazarus is named in John, I thought I would give an ironic reason for his doing so.

In Chapter 20, allusion is made to something's happening on Mount Tabor. The "something" is the transfiguration, but you will have to wait for the John novel to see what actually took place. The incident of the demoniac is related at this point by all the Synoptics; of course, they do not say that Nathanael is the student who failed to cast out the demon. The incident of the storm at sea is in all the Synoptics, but no one mentions that it was Nathanael who woke Jesus.

In Chapter 21, the incident with the demons named "Legion" is in all the Synoptics. In this chapter and 22, that of Mary of Magdala is from Luke, who does not name her there, but relates what the "sinful woman" did at Simon's house, and later talks about Mary of Magdala, out of whom seven devils were driven. That she turns out also to be Mary of Bethany has a tradition in favor of it, which I exploited in the Magdalene novel. Chusa's Joanna will doubtless demand an apology from me when I get to the Other Side (as will so many of the rest) for the character I gave her. We know nothing but her name from the Gospels. The Prodigal Son story is from Luke; I made it apply to Mary and their reaction to her.

In Chapter 23, I gave a plausible explanation of the discussion in all the Synoptics of "who would be first" in the Kingdom. The Jairus episode and the woman with a hemorrhage is in all the Synoptics. The fact that the daughter of this woman was a servant of Mary is fiction, as is the whole character of Judith. The incident of the canteens and Thomas is fiction, as is the conversation with Thomas and the others.

In Chapter 24, they are talking about the parable of the workers in the vineyard, which is only in Matthew. The rest of the chapter is fiction.

In Chapter 25, the multiplication of the loaves is in all four Gospels. I basically took John's version, along with the storm at sea, the walking on water, and the bread of life speech.

In Chapter 26, the episode of Jesus's relatives is in all the Synoptics. I conflated it with the remarks in John about going to Judea to be noticed, and Jesus's reply and his subsequent trip there. The interlude in this chapter and Chapter 27 of Nathanael curing his mother and then traveling with Judas, and the incident of the tarantula is fiction.

In Chapter 28, the episode of the tribute to Caesar is in all the Synoptics, and I put it just before John's report of the woman caught in adultery, which I followed from John's account of Jesus's speech about believing in him or dying in one's sins, and the claim "Before Abraham came into existence I AM."

In Chapter 29, Nathanael hears part of the Good Shepherd speech from John. Of course, what Judas did to Thomas is fictional. Jesus's talking to Mary, and Martha's complaint are from Luke. The denunciation of the Scripture scholars and Pharisees is in all three Synoptics; I used Matthew's version for the little I quoted.

The beginning of Chapter 30 is from John, as is the episode of the resurrection of Lazarus. In Chapter 31, everything is fiction except, from John, the fact that the group was in Peraea, and the dinner at Lazarus's house, at which Mary poured perfume on Jesus's feet and wiped them with her hair. Judas's reaction is also not fictional. (It is there that John informs us that Judas was an embezzler, by the way.)

In Chapter 32, the triumphal entry into Jerusalem is in all four Gospels. Jesus's reaction to the Greek-speaking Judeans is from John. The preparation for the Passover dinner is in all the Synoptics. The ambiguity over the day of the Passover dinner is based on the fact that the dinner in the Synoptics is portrayed as the Passover dinner, while John clearly says that the authorities on Friday did not enter Pilate's headquarters so that they could eat the dinner (presumably that night). The washing of the feet and what follows is from John, into Chapter 33, with the exception of the institution of the Eucharist ("this is my body," etc.), which John omits, but is in the Synoptics and 1 Corinthians. I mainly followed John into the garden of Gethsemani, but added some touches from the Synoptics (e.g. Jesus's sweating blood from Luke). Ezra's statement to Thomas about Judas's death is based on Matthew. The incident at The Pavement is from John. The falling of Jesus under the cross is a tradition, not explicitly reported, though his having help carrying it is in the Synoptics, as is the report of the darkness. Matthew quotes Isaiah about the suffering servant. The Synoptics report Jesus as screaming; John does not.

In Chapter 34, the students' congregating in the upper room is implied in the Synoptics by where they were when Jesus appeared to them. We know from John that Thomas was not there when Jesus first came to them; of course, the reason why is fictional, as is what happened between him and Nathanael.

In Chapter 35, the apparition of Samuel is based on what Matthew says about dead people's appearing at the time. Thomas's probing Jesus's wounds is from John. Of course, Jesus's appearance to Nathanael is fiction, giving my own musings about what the whole thing is all about.