As with so many factors in Christianity, religious conservatives and
liberals differ greatly in their methods of approaching the Bible and studying the
Gospels. This leads them to totally two wildly different sets of beliefs about
Jesus: his purpose, life, actions, statements, status, etc. Many, perhaps
most, Christians hold beliefs that are intermediate between the extremes
shown below:
Very conservative Christians
Very liberal Christians
Basic beliefs: They generally
believe in the inerrancy, infallibility
and inspiration by God of all verses in the Bible, as they were originally
composed. The Bible is unique among books in the world; God
influenced each of its authors so that their writings were totally
free from error. Further, religious conservatives feel that passages
should be literally interpreted, unless there are obvious
indications that a verse should be understood symbolically.
Although the four gospels were written by men with different
outlooks and backgrounds, all are consistent with each other and
with the truth about Jesus. A passage written by John is as valid as
one written by Mark.
Basic beliefs: Theyview
the holy books of Christianity and other religions as having been written by authors who
were promoting their own spiritual and religious thoughts, and those
of their group. Their writing was not directly controlled by God.
The gospels show a clear evolution of theological belief over
time. The earliest sections of the first known gospel, "Q"
appears to have been written circa 50 CE. 4It
presents Jesus as a very human Jewish teacher, prophet, and healer. The final canonical
gospel, John, appears to have been written by a group of believers
in the very early 2nd century CE. It portrays Jesus as a god-man,
savior of the world, having existed
since the creation of the universe.
Duration and locations of Jesus'
ministry: John implies that Jesus' ministry lasted at least
three years. John 2:13, 6:4 and 11:55 mention three Passovers. John
5:1 implies a fourth. John deals mainly with Jesus' ministry in and
around Jerusalem; the other gospels discuss his activities in
Galilee.
Duration and locations of Jesus'
ministry: The gospels disagree about both duration and location
of Jesus' ministry. John implies a three year or longer ministry,
spent mainly in Jerusalem and elsewhere in Judea. The other gospels
imply a one year ministry in the Galilee.
The writers: The authors of the four gospels were
named Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Matthew and John were
disciples of Jesus. Mark may have been the young man who fled the
Garden of Gethsemane. Both Mark and Luke were Paul's helpers.
The writers: None of the gospel authors' names
or identities are known. None were eyewitnesses to Jesus'
ministries. They had to rely upon second and third hand stories
about
Jesus. It is possible that all were children or not yet born at the
time of Jesus' ministry.
Dates written: Paul Benware
estimates that Matthew was written circa 45-55 CE, only 12 years
after Jesus' execution; Luke in either 58 or 65; Mark circa 66; John circa
85 to 95 CE. 2Since the Holy Spirit prevented any errors, all of the
gospels are consistent and free of error.
Dates written: Mark was written circa 70 CE,
some 40 years after Jesus' execution. Matthew was written circa 80;
Luke circa 90 and John circa 100 CE. The four gospels demonstrate
how theological beliefs evolved significantly during the 70 to 80
years from Jesus' death to John.
Synoptic Problem: Many passages in
the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) are identical or almost
exact. One reason for this is that all three authors based their
writing on an oral tradition passed down from decade to decade.
Another is that all of the authors were guided by the Holy Spirit in
their writing so that they described events exactly as they
occurred, without error. Finally, Matthew and John were disciples
and thus were eyewitnesses to Jesus' ministry. They recorded exactly
what they saw. Mark may also have been a follower of Jesus.
Synoptic Problem: Many passages in the synoptic
gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) are identical or almost exact. Most
scholars believe that Matthew and Luke were, in part, copied from
Mark. Many believe that a prior gospel "Q,"
now lost, was also used by both Matthew and Luke. 4
Analysis of passages
that are similar but not identical is called "redaction
criticism." It can give insight into the order in which
the Gospels were probably written, their date of composition, and
the development of theological beliefs in the early Christian
movements.
Differences in John: John's
mission was to write a gospel for the emerging Christian church. The
other gospel writers directed their gospels to specific groups: Jews
and Gentiles (both Roman and Greek). So it is to be expected that
their emphasis would be different. John mainly recorded Jesus'
ministry in Judea, near Jerusalem; the other gospel writers
discussed his ministry in the Galilee. But all four gospel writers
were preserved from error by the Holy Spirit. Their writings are inerrant,
and all useful for the understanding of the gospel.
Differences in John: The Gospel of John
differs significantly from the other gospels in theme, content,
time duration, order of events, and style. "Only ca. 8% of
it is parallel to these other gospels, and even then, no such
word-for-word parallelism occurs as we find among the synoptic
gospels." 3 John reflects a
Christian tradition that is quite different from that of the other
gospels. It was rejected as heretical by many individuals and groups
within the early Christian movement. It came close to being rejected
when the choice of books for the Bible was settled. John is of little help in
uncovering the historical Jesus.
Gospel content: Each of the four
gospels is different. Although each stands on its own merits as an
accurate description of the life of Jesus, Matthew and Luke contain
information about Jesus' birth and childhood not found in the other
gospels. John contains descriptions of Jesus' early ministry. Luke
describes his later Perean ministry. 2
Most of the content of the gospels should be interpreted
literally.
There are hundreds of apparent contradictions in the
Bible:
Almost all can be harmonized through prayer and research.
A few can be attributed to copyist errors.
A very few cannot be resolved with our present level of
knowledge. However, they can be harmonized.
Gospel content: The gospels
contain a mixture of:
Statements and actions of Jesus as passed down orally from
previous generations.
Theological beliefs about Jesus that had developed within the
author's own religious group long after Jesus' execution.
Non-historical passages that reflect religious conflicts in which the
author's faith group was involved, at the time that the gospel
was written.
Interpreting the gospels: Only those who are born again can understand the
Gospels.After a person is saved, the Holy Spirit inhabits
their body and helps her/him gain
an understanding of the Bible's meaning. The gospels,
and other parts of the Bible, are normally interpreted
literally. Historic beliefs of the Christian religion are accepted
as truth: the atonement, biblical inerrancy,
incarnation, biblical inspiration, justification, regeneration of
the spirit, resurrection, salvation,
the second coming, the Trinity, the virgin
birth, etc. Faced with apparent contradictions, a believer can
take advantage of the harmonizing efforts of past theologians and
guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Interpreting the gospels: A main
activity of liberal theologians over recent generations has been
to study the gospels and other early Christian documents intensely, searching for the "historical
Jesus" -- the actual statements and acts of Yeshua of Nazareth. This involves stripping away the magical healing and
miracle passages, removing anti-Jewish religious propaganda,
deleting text that represents theological beliefs that only
developed decades after Jesus' death, detecting distortions in the
original oral transmission, removing events in Jesus' life which are
copies of those in other god-men's lives. Not much is left. But we
can get a glimpse of
what the real Jesus was like.
Other writings: The
extra-canonical gospels and acts -- those writings by early
Christians that were not accepted into the Bible -- are of little
importance. Most are heretical in nature and can be safely ignored.
They were all rejected by the early Christians when the canon was
established.
Other writings:
About 45 of other gospels, many "acts"
and epistles
etc. were widely circulated within the early Christian church.
Analysis of these writings -- particularly the Gospel of Thomas --
can help us understand the words and actions of Jesus, as perceived
by the early Christians.
Further gospel interpretation by conservative Christians:
The authors of the gospels described Jesus from different
viewpoints: Matthew presents Jesus as king; Mark as the servant of God. Luke
emphasizes Jesus' humanity. John describes Jesus as the Son of God, the savior of humanity.
The gospels were written for four different audiences: Matthew for the
Jews, Mark for Roman gentiles, Luke for Greek gentiles, and John for
the developing Christian church.
"...what they wrote is accurate, without error,
directed by
the Holy Spirit, and is therefore authoritative in our lives."
2
Material in the gospels are not necessarily presented in
chronological order. Jesus' aggravated assaults in the temple appears early
in John's gospel, but near the end of Jesus' ministry in the synoptic
gospels: Matthew, Mark and Luke.
The gospels are not historical biographies in the modern sense.
Their purpose was to preach "the gospel, the good news,"
not to record in detail every event during Jesus' ministry.
The gospels present Jesus as the Son of God, the Lord and Savior of
humanity. "Throughout the gospels, Jesus appears as more than
a man. His message, his deeds and his person force the reader to
decision." 1
Sponsored link:
Further gospel interpretation by liberal Christians:
Conservative Christians attempt to understand the meaning of the inerrant
gospel texts, in the light of the Church's traditional beliefs concerning
Jesus -- the virgin birth, incarnation, resurrection,
etc. Religious liberals approach the same texts from a different
point of view. They assume that the gospels are errant, since they were
written by ordinary people. They believe that
the sayings and acts of the historical Jesus have been deliberately
obscured or distorted by the Gospel writers, in order to:
Fulfill various prophecies in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament).
Reflect the conflicts that the Christian movements were having with
the Jewish and Roman authorities, late in the late 1st century
and early 2nd century, when that the Gospels were being
written.
Reflect the evolving theology of the early Christian movement.
Disguise the humanity and shortcomings of Jesus in order to make him
act less as a human being and more as a god-man and miracle worker.
Add descriptions of imaginary, magical events, in order to prove the
deity of Jesus, and allow Christianity to compete with other religions
in the Mediterranean area.
Liberals
generally agree that the three synoptic gospels are are of the
greatest help in the search for the historical Jesus. The Gospel of
Thomas, which never made it into the Bible, was widely used by Gnostic
Christians in the early years of the Christian moment, and is useful today. The Gospel of John
contains little information about Jesus words or acts. Hundreds of scholars over many generations have devoted themselves
to the analysis of Mark, Matthew and Luke. Their task has been called the greatest detective story of
all time.
A major breakthrough in the liberal interpretation of the Gospels was been
the recreation of the long-lost Gospel of Q. The earliest part of that
gospel appears to date from about the year 50 CE -- only two decades after
Jesus' execution, and decades earlier than the first canonical gospel was
written. Q seems to have been the earliest
attempt to record the life of Jesus in written form. It may thus be the
most accurate portrayal of Jesus. 4It describes Jesus as a itinerant Jewish rabbi/teacher who was
motivated by a desire to spread his beliefs to his fellow Jews
in Galilee. He taught a message of compassion, inclusion, and personal
freedom in a
culture that was extremely oppressive, insular and restrictive. He had no interest in
spreading his beliefs beyond the Jews, to the Greeks and other gentiles.
It contains nothing about Jesus' crucifixion,
resurrection, and ascention.
It is quite impossible to condense the redaction
criticism, and other forms of analysis, of tens of thousands of person-years of effort into one
essay. There is room for only a few examples:
Mark includes passages that describe "various degrees of
imperfection in Jesus..." 5 --
passages that Matthew and Luke either minimize or delete. The Gospel of Mark, having being written 10 to
40 years before the remaining gospels, is assumed to include a more
accurate picture of Jesus' character. Later gospels reflected the
evolving theology of the early Christian movement. They began to view Jesus
less as a man -- an itinerate preacher. They described him more as a
perfect god-man -- the Son of God, the Lord and Savior of humanity -- free if
imperfections. Geza Vermes lists parallel passages in the synoptic
gospels which indicate this shift towards perfection: 5
In Mark 1:41, Jesus is moved by either pity or anger towards a leper.
(Early manuscripts differ on this point.) In Mark 3:5 he responds
to his critics with anger. Both passages indicate what might be regarded as
a human emotional weakness. Luke, in his parallel verse 6:10
edited Mark, deleting the "with anger"
phrase. In Matthew 12:12, the entire sentence is deleted.
Mark's comment in 3:21 that Jesus' family thought him insane was
deleted in the parallel passages of Matthew and Luke.
Mark 8:12 describes Jesus sighing or groaning when the Pharisees request a
sign from heaven. In the parallel verse, Luke 11:16, Jesus gave no
response; Matthew deletes reference to the sigh in 16:2.
Mark 10:14 has Jesus reacting with annoyance when the disciples
try to isolate children from him. His anger is not mentioned in
the parallel passages of Matthew 19:13 or Luke 18:16.
Mark 5:9 describes Jesus as not knowing the name of a demon; he
has to ask for the evil spirit's name. Matthew chose to delete this
passage rather than copy or edit it.
Mark 1:34 and 3:10 describe that all of the sick were brought
before Jesus, and that he healed many of them. This infers that he
was unsuccessful healing others. In the parallel passages (Matthew 8:16, Luke 4:40) he cures
them all.
Mark 6:5 says that Jesus was able to heal a few sick people but
otherwise was unable to do any mighty works in his home town,
Nazareth. Matthew 13:59 alters this to say that Jesus was able to do
a few miracles; he wrote "he did not do many
mighty works there." Luke dropped the passage altogether.
Parallel passages in the synoptic gospels can be read in reverse
chronological order, starting with the latest (Matthew), then Luke and
finally Mark. One detects a gradual increase in the humanness of
Jesus. Jesus becomes less a god-man and more of a itinerate teacher. "...Mark's Gospel brings us nearer to the Jesus of history
than any other New Testament writing...Mark is the only evangelist who
enables us to hear today an occasional and faint echo of what might
have been...Jesus' own words in his own language." 6
Luke's claim (in Chapter 1) that he carefully researched other
gospels before preparing his own implies that he is a careful
historian. This can be tested by comparing Luke's text with the
historical record:
Luke 2:1 talks about Joseph and Mary traveling to Bethlehem in
order for Joseph to register in "his own city,"
for taxation purposes. There is no record of a Roman tax system
that required people to go to the city of their ancestors. It
would be totally impractical. All agriculture and commerce would
ground to a halt; the empire would be paralyzed for months.
A woman in 1st century Palestine was either under the control of
her father or her husband. There would be no necessity for her to
go to Bethlehem to be registered; only adult males were recorded.
There is no evidence of Luke's world-wide census during the
reign of Caesar Augustus, who ruled from 27 BCE
to 14 CE. There was a local census in 6 CE,
but this is at least a decade after the probable time of Jesus'
birth.
In Luke 3:2, the author refers to the high priesthood of "Annas
and Caiphas." But the temple only had one high priest at
a time. Annas and Caiphas never served together or even
consecutively. 6
The discrepancies between Luke's gospel and the historical record
indicate that Luke is not a reliable historian. His text must be
interpreted with a grain of salt.
According to R.W. Funk, "Christian orthodoxy did not emerge
immediately after the death of Jesus but developed over decades. As a
consequence, traces of later Christian orthodoxy attributed to Jesus
or his first followers are anachronistic." 6For
example, Jesus is described in the synoptic gospels as imitating past
heroes and Gods. Just as Moses fed the Israelites during the Exodus, Jesus fed
thousands on a few loaves and fishes. Both Elisha and Jesus healed
lepers. Jesus walked on water just as the Greek God Poseidon did.
"Stories echoing Israelite and pagan heroes were strategies in
the [Christian first century CE] program to market the messiah to the
wider world, and their historicity is thus seriously undermined."
6
Using the above and similar methods of analysis, layers of written
material that obscure the historical Jesus can be detected and discarded.
The authentic words and acts of Jesus can be glimpsed.
P.N. Benware, "An outline of Christ's life," in "Survey
of the New Testament," Moody, (1990), Page 57+ Review/order this
book
F.V. Filson, "The Literary Relations among the Gospels,"
essay in C.M. Laymon: "The Interpreter's One-Volume Commentary on
the Bible," Abingdon Press, Nashville, TN, (1991) Review/order this
book
Burton L. Mack, "The Lost Gospel of Q: The Book of Christian Origins",
Harper, San Francisco, (1993) Pages 73 - 80. Review/order this
book