Loading...With this post I am returning to my discussion of methods available for studying the Gospels. I will devote probably three posts to a method that I call the “comparative method.” Like the other two methods I’ve discussed (the literary-historical method and redaction criticism) this method is not *at all* concerned with establishing what really happened in the life of Jesus. It is a method meant to help one understand a Gospel as a piece of literature, to see what its *portrayal* of Jesus is.
In my textbook on the New Testament I show how the method works by applying it to the Gospel of Luke. It could obviously be used for any of the Gospels – or for any other literature, for that matter. Here is how I describe it in the book, in relation to the method that it most resembles, redaction criticism (remember: in redaction criticism one sees how an author has changed his source – by what he has added, deleted, or altered – so as to determine what his overarching concerns are; and so you can see how Luke and / or Matthew have changed Mark, since they used Mark as a source)
*******************************************************************
The Comparative Method and the Gospel of Luke
Perhaps the best way to explain how the comparative method works is to point out two problems that recent scholars have found with redaction criticism. The first is that examining how a redactor has changed a source will not necessarily give you a complete account of what he or she considered to be important. This is because the redactor has actually made two kinds of decisions: not only about what to change but also about what to keep. Sometimes it is just as important to know what an author has decided to leave intact as to know what he or she has decided to alter.
This is a valid objection to redaction criticism as it is sometimes practiced, which is why I earlier stressed that seeing the alterations that authors have made in their sources can only serve as a short cut to understanding their distinctive emphases. A complete redactional analysis would need to consider, in detail, both the similarities and the differences of the texts in question. As we will see, this is true of the comparative method as well.
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a Member. Click here for membership options. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN ALREADY!!!
Are there really that many scholars who reject Markan priority? I think it’s pretty obvious. I can understand why some have doubts over Q – that is a harder question – but the hypthesis that Matthew extended Mark is surely more plausible than the idea that Mark edited Matthew. Why do I get the feeling that the ones who question it are mostly very conservative scholars of the likes who typically write repsonse books to your books LOL.
No, not too many.
I’d actually been thinking of asking whether new Bibles still have Matthew coming before Mark, when Mark is “known” to be the first-written! Hesitated to ask because I thought the answer, whichever it was, would be known to so many people that it would seem like a stupid question.
I’m very interested in what you’re telling us now. But I’d also love to know the arguments for and against Mark’s having been the first-written.
The order of the books of the Bible is pretty well set, and it is not based on chronology of which book was written first. Otherwise the first book of the NT would be 1 Thessalonians!
I’ll think about spelling out th earguments for Markan Priority, as it is called.
Prof. Ehrman,
the literary-historical method postings of the individual Gospels are very interesting to me since they clearly show the books as they were written and written seperate from one to another. Since I continue to have the picking and choosing verses still clouding my understanding of the Gospels and the Bible.
Could you explain your definition of “Christian”. By that I mean, since Jesus was a Jew and Jews by definition do not believe in Jesus, as their savior, and Christians believe Jesus is there savior, and Jesus was a Jew?? Or are you only Christian if you believe Jesus was divine?
I pre-ordered your new book, ” How Jesus became God”. And I am looking forward to reading it.
I define Christian as anyone who believes in or follows Jesus for salvation, however that is defined. Jews can be Christians as well as anyone else can be; there is no definition of Judaism that requires Jews not to believe in Jesus — at least from the Christian perspective. There are and always have been Christians who do not think that Jesus is divine.
May I follow your answer to Mary’s question with 2 questions?
You wrote: “I define Christian as anyone who believes in or follows Jesus for salvation, however that is defined.”
1. Since I am not a Christian, I am not really clear what salvation means. Would being saved from hell be the classical definition? If so, then what might another definition or two be?
2. You wrote: “There are and always have been Christians who do not think that Jesus is divine.” Having taken your Great Courses classes, and read some of your books, I understand that about the past. But now? Can you write a few words about what that would be like nowadays? You mean like if someone said he or she is Christian, but Jesus was just a great teacher whose words and actions are personally meaningful to me? I mean anyone can say and believe whatever they want, and that’s fine, but that does not sound like a Christian.
For many people salvation involves deliverance from hell; for others it simply means being restored to a right relationship with God, or even with oneself.
Yes, there are plenty of followers of Jesus who try to keep his teachings who do not believe in his literal resurrection or divinity,but still consider themselves Christian.
That raises a lot of other questions, but for this discussion, that’s clear. Thank you. tracy
Fascinating! Thank you for elaborating on the methodology! I’ve been struggling through some scholarly books that do mention these methods, none have really given me a practical understanding with such in depth examples of their usage. This foundational knowledge of the critical method really helps me to understand other things I’ve been reading. I’m one of those people who aren’t just happy with an answer, but want to know “why?”, many times to the frustration of my children who say “ask him for the time and he’ll tell you how to make a watch!’ I really appreciate you taking the time out of your very busy life, to educate all of us here. Your blog has been very educational, enriching, and rewarding. Thank you Sir!
Bart, how do you deal with a situation like this as a historian?
Situation:
We know that John was a Christian but we have no evidence of John leaving Christianity due to his brothers death.
It’s *possible* John left but we have no evidence pointing in that direction, therefore there’s no reason for me to think so.
But can’t you say it’s equally possible John left and there’s no evidence of him staying in Christianity after his brothers death? So you can’t say there’s no reason to think he stayed?
Are you talking about John the son of Zebeddee? He’s still a leader of the church years later when Paul visited Jerusalem.