Loading...In my two previous posts I’ve been trying to explain that the historical-critical view of the Gospels, in which they are recognized not always to represent historically accurate information about Jesus, is not necessarily a view that “trashes” them. Instead, it is a view that tries to understand what they really are instead of insisting that they are something else. Accepting them for what they are is surely a good thing; making them into something they are not can’t be good.
In this post I want to do something highly unusual for me. I want to explain, for those of your who are Christians (or for anyone else who is interested), why this critical view of the Gospels is in fact *theologically* valuable, far more theologically value than a view that would insist that the Gospels have no discrepancies between them or errors of any kind, but are historically accurate accounts of what happened in the life of Jesus.
When I was a Christian, once I came to the conclusion that the Gospels in fact are full of contradictions and discrepancies and historical inaccuracies– after many years of research – I also came to realize that this understanding was remarkably fruitful from a theological point of view.
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, go to your paid membership site. If you don’t belong yet, ARE YOU WAITING FORTHE ESCHATON???
Member Content Continues:
Bart, would it be ok to ask you a totally unrelated question? I seem to remember you mentioning in one of your books that you went on a trip to Turkey some years back, and – among other things- you took time to visit Ephesus. I’ve been reading some documents from the Council of Ephesus, and I’m wondering if historians or archaeologists can tell us exactly where in Ephesus that council took place. In one of the documents it mentions that the council took place in a church. Do we have any idea, any trace, as to where exactly that church was located – do you know?
It’s a good question, but I’m afraid I don’t know. It would have to have been a big church. But Ephesus itself was a pretty big place, and I don’t know f there is a traditional site for the council has been identified or not.
Thank you
The traditional site for the Council of Ephesus is evidently the Church of Mary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Mary
Good post! It’s interesting that the Gospel of Mark was not “sola scriptura” for the authors of Matthew and Luke.
Teaching yes but this begs the question … teaching to what end? Can’t wait to read more.
Your point here seems to be logically separate from the question of how historically accurate the Gospels are. In principle, they might all be entirely accurate; but the different Gospels could have selected different facts to illustrate different theological pictures.
By the way, this may be a good chance for me to ask a larger question. I’ve been reading your blog for a while now, and I’ve read several of your books. I think I’ve noticed that you don’t have a whole lot to say about the Book of Revelation or about the literal details of eschatology more generally. Is my impression correct that the subject isn’t one of your main interests, or have you written a lot about it that I just haven’t come across? I ask, because the various different prophecies about the end times may be an even better example of your point here than the various Gospels are. That is, for example, it looks to me like Paul had a quite different notion of what the end would look like than John of Patmos did. Christians who have taken those prophecies literally and tried to combine them have come up with eschatological timelines that often seem remarkably baroque. What’s worse, they never seem to agree on just what the correct timeline is. My own feeling is that many of the prophecies were originally intended to be taken quite literally; but even if that’s the case, do you think Christians would still be better off looking at the theological “big picture” and interpreting them more symbolically?
I do talk about Revelation in my NT textbook. Maybe I should devote some posts to it here on the blog!
Absolutely love your emphasis on the value of opposing viewpoints among the gospel authors. However, I am curious as to how far you expect more conservative Christians (a crowd that I myself do not align with) to take this idea. For example: How do you expect them to reconcile their theology with the opposing Christologies presented in Mark and John? Haha, I suppose they’ll just have I figure that out on their own, but I curious what perspectives you hold on the matter.
Yes, I’m sorry to say this view will never catch on with conservative Christians, since their entire agenda involves *denying* discrepancies among the Gospels.
Will you be going back to your discussion about Evans’ critique of you book?
YUP! Most definitely.
“recognizing what each Gospel is trying to teach enables you to embrace the message of each Gospel without pretending that it’s the same message as every other Gospel. Not to do this is to impoverish the teachings of the Gospels, each and every one of them.”
–
At some point it has to be recognized that what fundamentalist beliefs do is trivialize the human concept of God and the human Jesus. Personalizing God is creating a trivial God. A God that is a being that oversees the world, fights Satan, needs worship, forgives sins etc is a simply another version of the mythological gods of the eastern Mediterranean and near East. J.B. Phillips wrote a book “Your God is Too Small.” The book isn’t all that good but the title was great.
–
Even worse is what it does to the story of Jesus. This is the story of an apocalyptic teacher in Palestine whose teachings placed him in opposition to the Roman Empire for which he was promptly crucified. Any meaning found here is found in the recognition of a human Jesus. Christology and the elevation of Jesus to God drains the story of any meaning. It trivializes Jesus.
–
It’s astounding to see how many Christians are worshipping a trivial God and a trivial Jesus because they do not understand critical scholarship is revealing a tremendous story of the evolution of religion, the emergence of Judaism from eastern Mediterranean religions and the story of a human Jesus. It is not however scholarship’s fault that people do not see this. Conservative scholars devote their lives to teaching a supernatural interpretation of texts rather than a critical interpretation. Christians go every week to churches where this is never discussed for the very good reason that this would created divisions within the church and many churches have split over less.
–
You are always under attack because of your critical scholarship. Do you continue with your reasoned responses to intemperate attacks in hopes that at least some will reason their way through to understanding what you are saying (even if they disagree)? Is there any hope of that when conservative scholars continually write “refutations” that are only convincing if you haven’t studied whatever issue is in question?
Well put, Rosekeister! Jesus, the kid in his late 20s, did and said some impressive things (and perhaps a few unimpressive things). While the literary Jesus may be turned into a god for some ancient cultural reason, surely the historical young man should not be “trivialized” or misrepresented as a god. I think David the Jewish King or Alexander the Great or even Abraham Lincoln deserve the title of “God” more than Jesus. The historical Jesus is “too small” to be called God by modern people, don’t you think?
rrogers, Well put, Rosekeister! Jesus, the kid in his late 20s, did and said some impressive things (and perhaps a few unimpressive things).
rrogers, would you give several examples of some of the impressive things Jesus said and did? Thank you
I thought this comment might have fallen under the radar; it probably should have. The point I intended is that the historical Jesus may have been an exceptional young man and/or a budding megalomaniac. His family seems to have been concerned about him (and perhaps those with whom he hung out). Whatever may have been the case, the tradition and theology that has exalted him beyond the actual person he was has left us with a hero to be worshiped. Now that I’m an old guy it has become increasingly difficult to understand why modern people of my generation would still insist upon worshiping this very young man. If one needs a hero, even a young hero, aren’t there better choices? I don’t claim to know or have any real recommendations to share with you. I’m just befuddled.
rrogers, Well put, Rosekeister! Jesus, the kid in his late 20s, did and said some impressive things (and perhaps a few unimpressive things).
rrogers, would you give several examples of some of the impressive things Jesus said and did? Thank you
rrogers, I guess I wasn’t very clear. Would you mind giving specific examples of those things you refer to as some pretty impressive things that Christ said and did, please?
” Whatever may have been the case, the tradition and theology that has exalted him beyond the actual person he was has left us with a hero to be worshiped.” rrogers
Who was he, actually?
Having grown up a doubtful Christian in The Church of Christ, I really appreciate your scholarship. This is such a rich approach: if the authors did not simply chronicle historical fact, we can then ask “What theological point were they trying to make by coloring it the way they did?” Very cool.
It seems to me that authors write not in order to be simply believed but to be understood. Same with the Gospels.
Great post again.
“To be believed” – is that proper English??
Hmmm. It does sound odd, now that you mention it.
“Seven last words of the dying Jesus.” When I was a devout christian I took those seven passages spread out over the four gospels in an apologetic way, as proof for inspiration of scripture. I had correlated the seven words with the 7 Feasts of YHWH and found parallels with history and prophesy. I went as far as even aligning the hours on the cross with the Feasts and the seven words. At the time I had found it quite convincing but it was likely a case of confirmation bias.
Very interesting how we create our own version of the gospel in our minds in order to excuse and justify discrepancies.
“Very interesting how we create our own version of the gospel in our minds in order to excuse and justify discrepancies.” Hugh
List 5 discrepancies that trouble you the most, if you don’t mind. Thanks
Hi prestonp,
I was referring to the Prof’s opening post,
“For example, in Jesus Interrupted I give a detailed analysis of the story of Jesus going to his crucifixion in Mark and in Luke. The reality is that these two versions of Jesus in the face of death are very, very different. In Mark, Jesus appears to be in shock. He says nothing the entire time – while en route, while being nailed to the cross, while hanging on the cross, until the very end, when he cries out the grpping words of Psalm 22 “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” Many many people have written me to point out that the Psalm Jesus quotes *ends* by the Psalmist acknowledging God’s presence in his life and expressing a hope that God will resolve his difficulties, and have argued – this is a very old and standard argument – that Mark means for us to think of the *end* of the Psalm when Jesus quotes the *beginning*. I think this is completely wrong. In fact, I think it is the opposite of being right. Mark’s Jesus does not quote the end that is a word of comfort; he quotes the beginning which is a word of despair. Because for Mark, Jesus is in despair. He has been betrayed and denied; his followers have not stood up for him but have fled; he has been ridiculed by the Jewish authorities, the Roman soldiers, people passing by the cross; an even by both criminals. In the end he dies feeling forsaken of God.
Luke portrays Jesus very differently indeed. Here Jesus comforts the weeping women while en route to crucified; he prays while being nailed that God will forgive those doing this to him; he talks to one of the others being crucified and assuring him that together they will, that day, wake up in paradise, and in the end, *instead* of asking God why he has been forsaken, he confidently entrusts his spirit to his loving Father. Jesus here – radically unlike Mark – is calm and in control and knows that God is on his side to the very end.
The problem is when people take the version in Mark, and then the version in Luke, and combine them together into one big mega-Gospel in which BOTH are taken as “what really happened.” But my view is that you really should not do that. Because when you do, you change what *both* authors have tried to say and you destroy how *each* of them portrayed Jesus going to his death. By doing this, you have in fact written your own Gospel. Which is fine, if what you want to do is write a Gospel. But if you want to know what Mark is trying to say, you can’t do it by pretending that he’s saying the same thing as Luke. And vice versa.”
When I get more time I’ll try to be more specific.
Both accurately depict his passion. he was in despair. Everyone did forsake him, except his mom and Ms. Magdalene. One doesn’t write his own gospel by believing both accounts are accurate.
The differences likely are the result of the different personalities who wrote them. Think of General Schwarzkopf and Vincent Van Gogh
your just trying to ” GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THNGS ”
sure no not trashing
anybody with common sense would understand that
everybody is after the correct knowledge
since when?
the beginning of course right ?
you see i see it is very important
gospel is gospel is good news the good news the world has been waiting on
BC and till now gospel is peoples views yes but
but the gospel can have the world loving god if it came to them correct
on his terms.
who’s views? creations views, that are intending nothing but positive ( and should respect that, grown man stuff 🙂
and yes words from jesus are in the modern day bible. do i believe it? yes is what we ask our selfs footprints of jesus is mirror imaging his ways ( perfect mind whether to prove or whether not to prove just knowing that your footprints of your mind will be judged. ones belief of course )
paying attention to the words and making your own foot prints of positive and not caring if anybody is looking cause all things are plain in the sight of heaven
pssh if the lost and have not yet been found only knew how powerful the bible is
on a intellectual self guidance way ? philosophical ? or straight path way to heaven
yes gospel is just words but words to flesh and flesh to spirit
right?
your faith will save and you will go in peace.
the only thing you can take with you is your understanding
understanding of anything for that matter so you better soak it up like a sponge right ?
and live life as much as you want to
so there are people beyond absolute certainty believe that there is a kingdom and paradise after this
so the knowledge one would start off with is ?
1
laws moses
honor your mother father
but love god more
2
treat your neighbor as if you were guarding them
understanding of knowledge and love and anything associated the definition of negative shake it off
that is a perfect mind ? but most importantly never deny the holy spirit
cause deny the father forgiven, deny the son forgiven, but deny the holy spirit and never be forgiven
do i believe ? yes
how much do i believe ? hah !
THATS BROTHER LOVE !
When Jesus heard of the death of John the Baptist,
he withdrew in a boat to a deserted place by himself.
What strikes me about the “inerrant word of God” belief is that those who believe it will readily concur that Jesus was the only inerrant being ever to walk the face of the Earth. He didn’t write anything…only errant humans did. Isn’t it erroneous by default?
I am not sure where to ask this question: Do you discuss anywhere about the locations of where the Gospels were written? I am familiar with the tradition that Papias indicated Mark was written in Rome. I have heard suggested that Ephesus was the place John was written. But these seem to be based on church tradition. Some commentaries I have read speculate that Mark was written in Syria or Galilee even. I ask this because I recent heard someone say that the Gospels were written by “Roman” Christians. I have not heard that claim made in exactly that way before. Does this make any sense? Certainly Rome had political control over large parts of 1st century world, but what would be the significance of claiming that the Gospels were written by “Roman” Christians?
I don’t ever discuss this, to my knowledge. The reason is that I think we simply don’t *know* where the books were written, except that they were someplace in the Greek-speaking parts of the Roman empire, and probably in large cities. Every guess is just that — a guess.
Thanks so much for your reply. I recently spoke to the person who made this claim. He said his claim was based upon the work of Bruno Bauer, a 19th century scholar. Apparently Bauer felt Jesus was a 2nd century AD creation of the Roman aristocracy based upon Greco-Roman philosophy and theology.
Yes, B. Bauer was quite the iconoclast in his day! He had very few followers indeed!
Thanks for your reply.
Another unrelated question. I was recently reading the commentary on Mark in the Hermenia series and was surprised by the reference to Martin Hengel and his contention that the Gospel of Mark was not anonymous. I was always taught that we did not know the authors of this work or any of the other canonical gospels. It seems he said that, yes the work was written without an author indicated but when the work was reproduced and circulated that the person who circulated the work would have known the author and would then have included a title referencing the author. So he seems to give high credence to the church tradition that Mark actually wrote the work. How widely is this view held by NT scholars? And if one even accepts this view, does it really do anything for us, since What do we really know about Mark? or John Mark? Is this just an effort to bolster authority and give historical credence to this first gospel?
I haven’t looked at this for a while. Does Hengel say that the book was not anonymous, or does he say that the title was attached to it very early. Big difference!
It is a little hard to tell since I am only reading Collins’ citation of Hengel. She says “In NT scholarship from WWII until the 1980’s at least, it was commonplace to say that the Gospels circulated anonymously at first and that their titles are late and secondary. The consequence usually drawn is that the attribution of authorship are historically unreliable, since there was a tendency to claim apostolic authority for sacred tests. Martin Hengel challenged this consensus in 1981.” She cites Martin Hengel Die Evangeliennuberschriften (Vorgetragen am 18, Oktober, 1981 In her subsequent discussion of the issue Collins seems to want to have it both ways by suggesting that the authors name was not on the original manuscript, but when it was sent to others outside of the community that the author’s name was known and added at the time of “production” for distribution. I guess that qualifies as “attached to it very early”, but she seems to imply VERY early and with knowledge of its veracity.
Yes, I think he agrees that the book was anonymous, but that people who “knew” added the title very early.
A dying man in excruciating pain could not have possibly said everything as described in all four gospels. It’s impossible, especially for someone being crucified!