An apology

There has been a devastating death in my family. I may be gone for a week or so, but will try to get back to posting regularly.

Hebrews part two

We are in Hebrews 1:5. The author is giving us old testament scriptures that show god telling some man he is gods son. We haven't actually been given Jesus's name yet, but it is assumed the reader knows who the author is referring to. The implication is that Jesus is god's son and that it was foretold in the Hebrew scriptures. We've read the first quoted scripture from Psalms and have seen that it is problematic as a foretelling of Jesus. It is most likely referring to David.

 Let's look at the next scripture given. It comes from 2 Samuel 7:14. "I will be his father, he will be my son." These words of god are coming from the prophet Samuel and being told to David, about David. In fact the rest of the verse reads "when he does wrong, I will punish him with the rod of men, with floggings inflicted by men." Is god really also speaking of Jesus here?

The next Old Testament verse quoted is supposed to be about when god's first born came into the world (aka the birth of Jesus). Deuteronomy 32:43: "Let all god's angel's worship him." There is a problem with this sentence. It is not found in all the manuscripts of Deuteronomy, just one dead sea scroll and the Septuagint. It is obviously an addition. Not only that, when the phrase is put in context, the subject is god, not Jesus. The angels are worshipping god, not his son at all. There is no mention of god's son in Deuteronomy 32.

The author of Hebrews then goes off on a tangent. "Speaking of angels" he decides to include an Old Testament reference to angels, Psalm 104:4. "He makes his angels winds and his servants flames of fire." Even though this phrase has nothing to do with Jesus, it is interesting, in that the author has quoted this scripture differently than how it appears in the context of the Psalm. In  Psalm 104, natural elements are being created and used by god for his purposes. "He makes the wind his messengers and flames of fire his servants." He does not start with spiritual beings and turn them into forces of nature.   The author of Hebrews is clearly playing word games.

Back to the son. The author of Hebrews next quotes Psalm 45:6-7. "Your throne, o god, will last forever and ever, and righteousness ("justice" in my OT) will be the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore god, your god, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy." What in the world is the oil of joy? First of all, in context, this Psalm specifically states in verse one that it was written for the king who lived at that time. What king? We don't know, but nevertheless, an earthly king born in the lineage of David, long before Jesus. He is called a man in verse two. He is also called god in verse six.

Guess what, it was not  uncommon for kings in ancient days to be thought of as gods themselves. However, the same terminology was often used for gods and kings, even when the kings were not considered divine, such as "lord" and "master." This is terminology that was also used for Jesus in the New Testament. My study bible notes say that the king was probably called god as an honorific, because he was god's representative on earth. However, it is a false equivalence to assume that every king or revered person called god actually was a supernatural god. Not to mention, the same individual called god in the Old Testament Psalms was not in any way the same person as Jesus.

Did the Jews believe in reincarnation? Did they believe he was David reborn? Do Christians believe that? That's almost what they would have to believe in order to believe this Psalm is talking about Jesus. Otherwise, the author is just cherry picking phrases that he likes and applying them to his perception of who Jesus was. In fact, I am beginning to be convinced that is exactly what Jesus's followers originally believed. When he was called the son of god or the christ (anointed one), I think they knew very well that those phrases referred to King David, the king of the Jews.

Remember in Mark, when Jesus asked Peter who people thought he was. Peter replied "Some say
John the Baptist, some say Elijah." Jesus would have been a reincarnation to be John or Elijah. Peter
then told Jesus that he believed Jesus was the christ. Who would have been reincarnated then? David! No wonder Jesus told his disciples not to tell people about him. No wonder he was killed for claiming to be king of the Jews! That makes sense to me, what do you think?

Introduction to Hebrews and part one.

I think our next book to study will be Hebrews. I tried to do an in depth study of Hebrews a couple of times as a christian and gave up. I was using a Bible study guide before. It only confused me because there seemed to be a lot of speculation and subjective opinion. Let's see how it goes this time.

First, let's read what Wikipedia has to say about the book of Hebrews here.

Hebrews is called an epistle or letter because there is a postscript which sounds personal, mentions Timothy, and sends greetings to unspecified leaders from unspecified persons in Italy. However, there is no greeting or address from or to a specific person or church at the beginning of Hebrews. There is also no claim of authorship in the entire book. The mention of Italy seems to suggest authorship by Paul or his cohorts, which may be exactly what the author intended us to think. The main body of the text, before the postscript, ends with an amen, leading me to think that was the original ending. Multiple other authors have been hypothesized throughout the centuries. The author still remains unknown.

The date of the writing is also unknown, with speculations ranging from 63 CE on into the second century. The oldest existing manuscripts of Hebrews are fragments from the late second century-early third century.  The book appears to be directed specifically at Jewish christians.

The book begins by talking about how god spoke to the Hebrews of old through the prophets but in those "last days" he spoke through his son. (If those were the last days, what are these days?) Right off the bat, Jesus is identified as the son of god. He is the heir of all things. Why does god need an heir? Is he going to die? That's what heirs are for, right? They inherit the father's property upon his death. If the father is eternal, what happens to the heir?

Next we are told that the universe was made through the son. This is news. The son didn't appear in the first chapter of Genesis. Oh wait, next we are told the son is the "radiance of god's glory." Is he shiny? Maybe he is the light in "let there be light." Next we are told the son is the exact representation of god's being. What does that mean? Is he the spitting image of god? In what way? Is he a clone? Does god have a body? If not, did Jesus have a body? That is not clear yet. We are also told the son sustains all things by his powerful word. Again, what in the heck does that mean? How does he do that?

The text then assumes that we know how the son provided purification for sins, after which he sat at the right hand of god in heaven. Presumably, god and Jesus have bottoms to sit with and heavenly chairs to sit on, unless they sit on clouds. In this way the son became superior to the angels, because God never called any angel his son. How do we know god called anyone his son? Must we take them at their word? What if Jesus was actually a liar, or a lunatic? If someone today told you god spoke to him and told him he was god's son, what would you think? You and I both know you would think he is bonkers.

The text gives two old testament references for god calling someone his son. Let's take a look at them. The first is Psalm 2:7. Who wrote this? Nobody knows, but it is presumed to be David speaking. Who is it talking about? "God's anointed one" which is a phrase for the king god has sanctified to lead the Jews, presumably David. This is all about the king/David being called god's son and being given the nations as an inheritance. (Not only that, The psalm goes on to say he will dash them to pieces like pottery!) Is the writer of the book of Hebrews referring to David? Nope. He's referring to Jesus. Is Jesus going to dash the nations to pieces like pottery? Hmm. That psalm also goes on to say that kings better kiss the son or he might get angry and destroy them. Nice guy this son of god.

Mark wrap up

Well, we have finally finished the book of Mark. Let's recap what we have learned. Mark is probably the first of the four gospel accounts. It was written by an unknown author sometime in the first century, probably between 50 and 80 CE. There are some "prophecies" that indicate it may have been written after the fall of Jerusalem.

The book is conspicuously lacking many events and details of Jesus's life that are included in other gospel accounts. There is no account of Jesus's supposedly divine origins or events in his childhood. Jesus's earthly father is not mentioned. There is no turning water into wine, no Samaritan woman at the well, no woman caught in adultery, no story of nets miraculously full of fish, no raising of Lazarus,  no story of the good Samaritan, no story of Judas's fate, and no doubting Thomas.

In this account, Jesus deliberately reduces the publicity of his ministry by telling people and demons to be quiet or refrain from mentioning any miracles he has done. He does miracles in deserts, on the other side of the Jordan, among gentiles, in private rooms, and out in the countryside, rarely does he act publicly in cities or areas more populated with Jews. Many of his miracles don't seem to have much of a miraculous quality.

Many of Jesus's teachings are given in private to the twelve disciples alone. Many of the things he says and does are not witnessed by the disciples or anyone else, yet somehow they appear in the account. The author writes in the omniscient point of view, when it is almost impossible for one person to know all the events and dialog included in the book of Mark. Even Jesus receiving the holy spirit at his baptism was witnessed by him alone.

Last of all, the original account ends cryptically with a message from an unknown person to two women who tell no one. Some future person clearly did not like that ending, so they embellished it with claims about supposed commands that Jesus gave the disciples when he appeared to them after being resurrected.

This book does not claim to be inspired or the word of god.

Mark part thirty

Today we finish Mark with verses 16:9-19. These verses are not in the oldest available manuscripts, which leads many scholars to conclude they were added later by someone who is not the author. The last passage had concluded with the two Marys being told by a young man dressed in white that Jesus had risen and he would meet the disciples in Galilee. The women did not tell anyone because they were afraid. Now, in verse nine, we are told that Mary Magdalene was the first person to see Jesus after he rose. According to the text, Jesus had driven seven (magic number) demons out of her. The demon story does not occur in Mark, but it is found in Luke 8:2, leading me to the conclusion that this passage was added after the circulation of Luke's gospel.

We've just been told the women said nothing to anyone, but now we are being told Mary Magdalene went and told those who had been with Jesus earlier, presumably his entourage of disciples and women followers. Would you believe the word of someone who was thought to have had seven demons? The text says they didn't believe her either. However, Jesus appears in a different form (so how did they know it was Jesus?) to two more people (who were they?) as they were walking along a country road. No other witnesses. They weren't believed either, naturally.

Later, Jesus appears to the eleven (minus Judas) while they were eating. The text does not say where they were. He rebukes them for not believing the tales the others told. Shouldn't he have praised them for not having blind faith in something so unlikely? Shouldn't he have known ahead of time those people would not be believed? At this time he gives them what has been called "the Great Commission." He tells the disciples (not anyone else, not you and I) "Go out into all the world and preach the good news (What good news? He doesn't say.) to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."

Just like that, Jesus ruins the lives of countless unbelievers throughout the centuries, even those who led exemplary lives. Is this the exact point in history at which all unbelievers are eternally condemned? It doesn't seem quite fair to all the people who died after this moment  yet never heard this "good news." Or is this condemnation only for those who hear the message and don't believe it. Wouldn't they have been better off never hearing it at all? The churches of Christ use this passage as one of there references for the doctrine of the necessity of believers baptism for salvation.

Jesus is not done talking. He also tells the disciples that signs will accompany those who believe. They will drive out demons, speak in tongues, handle snakes, drink poison with no ill effects, and heal the sick by laying on of hands. Was the person who wrote this trying to kill off crazy Christians?

When he was done talking, he was taken up to heaven and sat at the right hand of god. How do they know that? Then the disciples went out and preached. Stuff happened just the way Jesus said it would. Amen.

We are done! Next time we will do a wrap up of what we learned in the book of Mark.

Mark part twenty nine

We are at Mark 15:38 Jesus has just breathed his last. He did not ask god to forgive his executioners and those crucified with him were not told they would be with him in paradise. His side was not pierced. He said nothing but a lament. Then, according to the text, the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. This would not have been seen by anyone unless they were at the temple, and certainly not by anyone at the execution. It is also not recorded in extrabiblical history.

A centurion who heard Jesus's lament and saw him die said, "surely this man was the son of god." I don't see how he came to that conclusion. Some women watched the crucifixion from a distance. One was Mary Magdalene, who is first mentioned here. Another was Mary the mother of James, Joses, and Salome. These women were part of a group of women who had followed Jesus to Jerusalem from Galilee. They had been "taking care of his needs." This probably means they cooked and washed for him, because for some reason he couldn't do it for himself. (It couldn't be because he was sexist and thought that was women's work, could it?) The text does not say Jesus's mother or any of the twelve disciples was there.

In verse 42 we are told it was preparation day, the day before the Sabbath, Friday. Either Passover fell on a Friday that year or something about the timeline in Mark is off. It is still Passover if we follow the text. Evening is coming. The Sabbath begins at dusk. Joseph of Arimathea went to Pilate and asked for Jesus's body. Pilate confirmed with the centurion that Jesus was already dead and then gave the body to Joseph. The body was wrapped in linen and put in a tomb. A stone was rolled in front of it. The text does not say the tomb belonged to Joseph of Arimathea. The two Marys previously mentioned saw where the body was laid.

We are now in chapter 16. The Sabbath is over. It is just after sunrise on the first day of the week, Sunday. Jesus has been dead approximately 39 hours, less than two full days, if you count hours. If you count the names of the days he has been dead, I guess it makes three: part of Friday, all of  Saturday, and part of Sunday. But that seems like cheating to me.

The two Marys are going to the tomb to anoint the body with spices. They aren't sure who will roll the stone away from the entrance to the tomb. When they got there, the stone was already rolled away. A young man dressed in white was sitting inside the tomb. The ladies were alarmed but the young man told them not to be. He said Jesus had risen. They were to go tell Peter and the disciples that Jesus was going ahead of them to Galilee and they would see him there.

The women were naturally frightened and confused. They ran away from the tomb and told no one what had happened!  So, how does the author know anything about it? This is where the story ends in the earliest manuscripts, suggesting that perhaps Jesus was never actually seen alive again.

Mark 16:9-16 appear to have been added to the text at a later date, making its events highly unlikely. We will cover that passage next time.

Mark part 28

First, I want to apologize to regular readers for being a little late with content. I've been having my kitchen remodelled and it's been hard to find time to dedicate to the blog.

We are at Mark 15:21. Jesus has been condemned to crucifixion. He has been mocked and abused by Roman soldiers for claiming he was king of the Jews, which he appears to actually believe. Now the soldiers are leading him outside to be crucified. We are told that Simon of Cyrene, the father of Alexander and Rufus, (as if we should know who they are), was forced to carry Jesus's cross. Alexander is never mentioned again in the NT. A Rufus is mentioned only once, in Romans 16:13.

Jesus was taken to a place called Golgotha, or the place of the skull. No one actually knows the original location of this spot. I think that is rather odd. Wouldn't it have been of great significance to the early christians? There, the soldiers offered Jesus wine mixed with myrrh, but he didn't take it. This concoction may have been offered as an analgesic. Remember, Jesus had said he would not drink wine again till he drank it in the kingdom of god. Perhaps that is why the author says he refused it.

Jesus was then crucified and the soldiers cast lots to see who would get his clothing. This is supposed to have happened at "the third hour" of the day. (There is the number three again.) By the Jewish tradition of time reckoning, the third hour was half way between dawn and noon, 9 O'clock-ish. There  was a written notice of the charge against Jesus that read "the king of the Jews." Two robbers were crucified on either side of him. (Three people in a row.) Jesus was mocked and insulted by people who said that he had claimed  he would destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days. Back in Mark 14:58, the text says this was a false testimony. Jesus didn't actually make that claim about the temple. But the text of Mark does have him claiming to be killed and rising again after three days.

The people mocking him dared Jesus to come down from the cross and save himself. He saved others (referring to the supposed miraculous events and healings?) but he couldn't save himself. Some messiah, some king of Israel, he couldn't even save himself. They have a point. Not only that, I just realized that Jesus performed NO miracles in Jerusalem. Zip. Nada. The other people being crucified also heaped insults on Jesus. Ouch.

At the sixth hour (three hours from the initial crucifixion and also high noon) darkness came over the whole land and lasted til the ninth hour, three hours later. What was this darkness? Who knows. It can't have been an eclipse. A lunar eclipse can take a few hours to complete but doesn't happen in the day time. A solar eclipse only lasts about seven minutes. Plus there is absolutely no extrabiblical historic record of such a three hour darkness occurring around that time. That is something someone would have definitely noticed.

At the ninth hour, Jesus had been on the cross about six hours. He cried out in Aramaic, "My god, my god, why have you forsaken me?" Would he say this if he was god? How can he forsake himself? In the language that Jesus spoke, apparently he was mistakenly thought to have been calling out to Elijah. A man offered Jesus a drink from a sponge filled with wine vinegar, then told the people watching to see if Elijah would come down to take him.Surely he was being facetious. (Did the wine vinegar count as wine? Did Jesus drink it?)

With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last.

Mark part twenty seven

We are at Mark 14:66. Jesus has been condemned to death by the leaders of the Jews, for blasphemy. While Jesus's "trial" is going on, Peter is hanging around in the courtyard. A servant girl sees him and recognizes him as a follower of Jesus. Peter told her he didn't know what she was talking about and moved to another spot. The girl saw him again and told the other people standing around her suspicions. Peter denied it again. Later, some more people standing around could somehow tell he was a Galilean and again suggested he must be one of Jesus's followers. A third time, Peter swore he did not know Jesus. (There's that number three again) Immediately the rooster crowed a second time. (We were never told when the first crow was.) That reminded Peter of Jesus's prophecy about these very events. He began to weep.

We are now at chapter 15. All this stuff has been happening in the night, on Passover, if the story is happening in real linear time and not skipping days.. Nobody has had any sleep, as far as I can tell. Very early in the morning, still Passover, all the Jewish leaders decide to hand Jesus over to Pontius Pilate. Pilate asks Jesus if he is the king of the Jews. Jesus says yes he is. Why would Pilate ask Jesus that? Could it be that the messiah was supposed to be a Jewish king? Why does Jesus say yes?

 It should be noted that there was no  "king of the Jews" at that time. After Herod the great died in 4BCE, the kingdom was split among his three sons, who were called tetrarchs. The tetrarch of Judea, Archelaeus, was ousted by the Romans in 6CE and Judea became a province of Rome with an appointed governor. Pilate was governor of Judea from 26-36 CE. I imagine Jesus's claim would have either angered or amused him. Pilate tells Jesus to answer the many charges against himself, but he does not reply.

The text tells us it was the custom to release a prisoner at the request of the people, during the feast (passover). A crowd had gathered to make this request. Pilate asked if they wanted Jesus (the king of the Jews) released to them, but the chief priests influenced the crowd to release a man named Barabbas. Barabbas had been in prison with some insurrectionists who had committed murder in an uprising. We do not know which uprising this was, because there were many. Some were caused by the actions of Pontius Pilate himself, who set up Roman standards on the temple grounds and used temple money, naturally angering many Jews. It should also be noted that Barabbas means "son of the father." He could have been another contender for the son of god title.

The crowd asked for Barabbas to be released and shouted for Jesus to be crucified, in spite of Pilate's weak attempt to figure out why they wanted him dead. So Pilate had Jesus beaten (surely not necessary)  and handed him over to be crucified. The soldiers took Jesus to the praetorium, gave him a purple robe, and a crown of thorns. They mocked him, pretending he was a king, struck him on the head with a staff, and spit on him. Then they took off the robe, put his clothes back on and led him out to be crucified. So, how does the narrator know this? It was not done in public. Only the soldiers who participated would have known about it. This is another case of omniscient narrator. The same could be said of Jesus's passover night trial by the Sanhedrin. Where did the author of Mark get his information?

Notice that the crowd Pilate spoke to also rejected Jesus three times. In spite of what I have heard preached many times, there is no reason to believe the same people who sang his praises when he rode in to town on a donkey are the same people who yelled, "crucify him!"

Mark part twenty six

We are now in Mark 14:39. Jesus has gone off to pray twice; and he has gone back to rebuke Peter, James, and John, twice, for sleeping while they waited for him. Now he does the same sequence a third time.I have been impressed by the number of times three has cropped up in this story. We have three disciples dozing while waiting for Jesus. Three times Jesus prays. Three times he goes back to the three disciples to rebuke them. What are the odds more threes will occur in this story?

The third time Jesus rebukes the three, he also announces his betrayer is coming. So, somewhere in between the twelve arriving at the garden and this moment, Judas must have left. Judas now appears with what can be described as a mob, sent by the chief priests, teachers of the law, and the elders. (Three authority figures) These people  are not said to be Roman soldiers. Remember, this is the night of Passover, a religious holy day. This should not have been happening. Back in 14:2, the chief priests said they didn't want to arrest Jesus during the Feast  for fear of a riot. The feast of unleavened bread lasted a whole week. In the context of the story, it appears to be only the second day of the feast, Jewish time.

Judas had arranged a signal to show the armed crowd who to capture. He went to Jesus, called him rabbi, and gave him a kiss. He was immediately arrested. Someone standing nearby cut off the ear of the chief priest's servant with a sword. The text does not name that person. It also does not say Jesus stuck the ear back on and miraculously healed it. Jesus verbally protests the necessity of the arrest, but says "the scripture must be fulfilled." Everyone deserted Jesus and ran away. Jesus was only with three other people at the time, unless all the other disciples decided to come see what the commotion was.

Next, an odd incident is included in the story, telling us that a young man, basically only dressed in his underwear or night clothes, tried to run off but was grabbed by the flimsy garment. He escaped by leaving the garment behind, in other words, buck naked. Since this seems such a non-sequitur, many bible readers through the ages have decided the purpose for including this story must be because the young man was the author, AKA Mark. There is no actual reason to believe this other than speculation.

They crowd took Jesus to the Jewish authority figures who had gathered, on Passover night. Peter followed them at a distance, to the high priest's courtyard, and sat with the guards (not said to be Roman) by the fire. The whole Sanhedrin was there, on Passover night. They had a religious trial, in the middle of the night. Unbelievable. They needed two or more witnesses who could agree and give evidence to any religious crimes Jesus had supposedly committed that would justify putting him to death. They didn't get what they needed. Some testified that Jesus said he "would destroy this manmade temple and in three days build another, not made by man." However, no two testimonies agreeed. (Many Christians believe the Temple referred to was a metaphor for Jesus's body.) Jesus refused to answer the charges against himself, instead remaining silent.

Then the high priest asked Jesus if he was the christ, the son of the blessed one. Jesus replied, "I am." In the old testament "I am" is what god calls himself, this would mean Jesus was making himself Equal to god. If that wasn't enough, he goes on to imply that he will sit at the right hand of god and appear with him in the clouds when he comes. This was clearly blasphemy, punishable by death. Jesus was condemned to die, spat upon, blindfolded, and beaten.

Mark part twenty five

We are at Mark 14:22. The twelve disciples are eating the Passover meal. Jesus has said one of them will betray him. He also takes some bread, breaks it, and tells them, "Take it; this is my body." He equates his body with the bread they are eating, not the lamb. He also does not say his body will be broken.

Next he takes the cup, gives thanks and they pass it around. He says this is his "blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many." "Blood of the covenant" is a reference back to Exodus 24 where Moses sprinkles the blood of sacrificed bulls on the people and calls it the blood of the covenant. Frankly, it seems to me that such a statement would appear blasphemous or rude to other Jews, almost as though Jesus is mocking Moses.  The text implies they are drinking wine (fruit of the vine), because Jesus says he won't ever drink it again until he drinks it in the kingdom of god. (There is wine in the kingdom of god?) Jesus does not tell the disciples to repeat this ceremony in remembrance of him.

A note about the churches of christ: some extremely fundamentalist churches use this as one of their justifications for using only one cup to drink out of during communion service, which is also often called "the lord's supper," but is not actually a supper at all. They also insist that fruit of the vine refers to grape juice and not wine. Though where they would have gotten grape juice in early spring is a mystery. Strangely enough, their "supper" consists of a tiny piece of cracker and a swallow of grape juice. No lamb or other food to dip their unleavened bread into.

Next they sing a hymn and go out to the Mount of Olives, which is between Jerusalem and Bethany. It is still Passover night. There should be a full moon. Jesus predicts his disciples will abandon him, but "after he has risen" (from death or sleep?) he will go to Galilee ahead of them. Peter proclaims he will not fall away from Jesus. Jesus claims he will, that very night. Before the rooster crows twice, Peter will disown Jesus three times. Peter and the others insist they would die with Jesus before they would disown him.

Jesus and his disciples are in Gethsemane, which is located at the base of the Mount of Olives. As the name suggests, there was an olive grove. Jesus was there to pray. Was Gethsemane considered a sacred grove? If it wasn't then, it appears to be now. As far as we know from the text of Mark, all twelve disciples are present. Mark has not told us Judas left. Jesus tells most of them to sit in one place, then takes Peter, James, and John to another part of Gethsemane. He expresses That he is overwhelmed with sorrow and asks the three to remain in one spot while he moves on even further.

Then Jesus prays prostrate on the ground. He calls god his father, tells him that everything is possible for him, then asks god to "take this cup from me." Which seems to mean he knows what is about to happen and is not enthusiastic about going through with it. This and the preceding pronouncements by Jesus would actually make a lot of sense if he had engineered his own martyrdom. Having second thoughts is very human of him. Very few healthy people want to die. He seems to sincerely believe that god could stop it if he wanted to and declares his submission to the will of the father. Jesus is obviously not the same being as the father.

Next Jesus goes back to where he left Peter, James, and John, and rebukes them for falling asleep and not keeping watch. Keeping watch for what? Was Jesus expecting something to happen? If he planned it that way, of course! He left them again with an admonition to keep watch and pray. He repeated his previous prayer, then went back to the three. They were asleep again. Can you blame them? It's night time, they've had a full day, just eaten a meal, drunk wine, and walked to Gethsemane. They are sitting in an olive grove. It's probably very quiet, except for the rhythmic sounds of spring frogs and insects. Jesus is off by himself doing who knows what while they snooze.  According to the way the story is written, the narrator is omniscient, but there are no actual witnesses
to Jesus's words and actions.