Between Heaven and Earth: The Quest for the Historical Jesus

        

      What can we know about the “historical Jesus”? Firstly, it must be explained what is meant by the term. The historical Jesus refers to the figure of Jesus of Nazareth as he existed in history, separate from the religious beliefs and doctrines that have developed around him. It is an attempt by scholars to reconstruct the life, teachings, and actions of the actual person who lived in the 1st century C.E. in ancient Palestine.

I will assume that you have some background knowledge of what the four canonical Gospels are: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John and why they will be useful in our quest. However, we need to truly examine these Gospels to determine how useful they are in seeing who Jesus truly was. One must question their historicity, authorship, dating, and examine what they say. It might be surprising to read that the oldest Gospel in the New Testament is not Matthew which opens the Christian Bible but Mark. Furthermore, the consensus amongst scholars of the New Testament believe that the authors of Matthew and Luke copied off of Mark as a skeleton for their Gospels alongside other sources. This is why they are commonly referred to as the synoptic Gospels as synoptic in Greek means, “with the same eye”. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are referred to as the synoptic Gospels because they include many of the same stories, often in a similar sequence and in similar or sometimes identical wording. They stand in contrast to John, whose content is largely distinct in terms of chronology of events, Christology, and teaching and will be discussed later. But, for example, there are less healings and no exorcisms in John compared to the synoptics. In John there are few talks of eschatology or apocalypticism compared to the synoptics. Rather, in John there are many “I am” statements such as, “Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6) Statements like these are not found in the synoptics but rather statements about the imminent Kingdom of God are the focus. This is partly why historians believe it was written last in canon. As for the dating of the Gospels,

 

“Mainstream scholarly opinion holds the Gospel of Mark to be the oldest. It is addressed to a non-Jewish audience shortly after the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70… The Gospels of Matthew and Luke are slightly more recent than Mark; they may be placed between AD 80 and 100.” (The Authentic Gospel of Jesus pp. xi-xii)

 

“The earliest surviving Gospel that pulled together sayings of Jesus, combining them in a narrative about his ministry and death, was the Gospel of Mark, written around the year 70. In following chapters, I will demonstrate how we attempt to determine when Mark was written. After Mark, the Gospels of Matthew and Luke appeared, both using Mark as one of their sources…Therefore, there was a forty-year period between the death of Jesus and the appearance of the first Gospel we possess, although there seem to have been other written materials circulating during that time, and there were certainly many oral traditions being passed around.” (New Testament History and Literature pp 19-20)

 

“It comes as a surprise to many people familiar with the names Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John to learn that all four are anonymous productions, written in the generation after the apostles, and based on a complex mix of sources and theological editing. Scholars are agreed that none of the gospels is an eyewitness account and the names associated with them are assigned by tradition, not by any explicit claim by their authors. In other words, the names themselves are added as titles to each book but are not embedded in the texts of the works themselves. Each gospel writer had his own motives and purposes in telling the Jesus story in a way that supported his particular perspectives. None of them is writing history but all four can rightly be called theologians. From a distance their differences might seem minimal, but once carefully examined they are quite significant, revealing a process of mythmaking that went on within decades of Jesus' death.” (Paul and Jesus pp. 71)

 

We need to be careful when examining the four Gospels such that we read them as their own Gospels rather than one unit. It is best for academic purposes to read the Gospels as ancient literary productions, examining their use of character, plot, and structure. We need to read Mark as standing on its own, as its own literary unit. That means not reading Mark through the lens of the Jesus we may find in Matthew, Luke, or John, but looking only for the “Jesus” of Mark. One of the fundamental rules of modern historical criticism of the Bible is to avoid harmonizing the different documents. We take each Gospel individually, as making its own points and having its own aims. Furthermore, we want to avoid anachronism: we should not attribute a meaning to the text that we can't show to be believable in its ancient context. We do not want to assign a motive or intention to the author that would be highly unlikely for its time of writing. How do scholars know that Mark was written around the year 70 C.E.? We do not have any first century manuscripts of any of the Gospels with the oldest manuscript being a business-card-sized fragment from the Gospel of John, Rylands Library Papyrus P52, which may be as early as the first half of the 2nd century. The first complete copies of single New Testament books appear around 200, and the earliest complete copy of the New Testament, the Codex Sinaiticus, dates to the 4th century (The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings pp. 480). However, there are other clues that can tell us about the dating. The diction of the writer in the Gospel of Mark is heavily dictated by his surroundings and the current events during the era, which lead him to contemplate that the second coming was going to transpire in his lifetime. One of the most major events of this time was the destruction of the Second Temple. In 70 C.E. the Romans reclaimed Jerusalem and destroyed the Second Temple with only a portion of the western wall remaining. However, in Mark’s Gospel, not all the details of the events are given compared to Luke for example,

 

“Let's note also what Mark does not tell us. The author nowhere narrates the actual surrounding of Jerusalem by the Roman army, the destruction of the temple, the destruction of Jerusalem itself, and the carrying off of thousands of Jews into Roman slavery. We know that those things actually did happen in and just after 70 C.E. But the Gospel of Mark makes no mention of them. This is notable precisely because the version of this “little apocalypse” that occurs in the Gospel of Luke does predict those events (see Luke 21). As we know, the author of Luke used Mark as one of his sources, so Luke was written sometime after Mark. It is significant, I argue, that Luke gives details of events that took place after 70 C.E., whereas Mark does not. In fact, his apocalypse predicts the coming of the Son of Man just after the setting up of the “desolating sacrilege” in the temple… If we follow the same method for Mark, we should place its writing just before 70 C.E. or close enough following it that the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem had not had time to “sink in” yet. After all, the author portrays Jesus as predicting the destruction of the temple. But the author does not narrate it, or anything after that event either. Many scholars think this is good evidence that the gospel of Mark can be dated just like many other apocalyptic writings: by where the "history" goes wrong.” (New Testament History and Literature pp 90-91)

 

Mark does not provide any narrative of the actual events that occurred during the siege of Jerusalem, the destruction of the temple, or the enslavement of thousands of Jews by the Romans, even though these events were significant and well documented in history. Since Luke used Mark as one of its sources, the fact that Luke includes these events suggests that it was written after the events took place. Mark must have been written before 70 C.E. or shortly after it, at a time when the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem had not yet become widely known or “sunk in” among the people. The reasoning behind this conclusion is that if Mark was written after the events, it would be expected to include details about the destruction, especially considering the significance of the event in Jewish history. The absence of such details in Mark implies that the Gospel was likely composed before the events occurred, providing a basis for dating the Gospel of Mark in relation to the historical context it describes.

What were the sources of the Gospels? Starting with Matthew and Luke, biblical historians believe their sources were Mark, Q, and special M or L material. The Q source which comes from the German word, Quelle, which means source, is what Matthew and Luke have in common but is not found in Mark. While the special material is what is unique to themselves.

 

“The similarities and differences between the Synoptic Gospels gave rise to many debates on the so-called synoptic problem. The classic solution, the ‘two-source theory’, maintains that Mark is an independent composition and that Matthew and Luke rely on Mark into which they insert the contents of another hypothetical compilation consisting mainly of sayings. This hypothetical compilation is designated as Q, derived from the German word for ‘source’. Quelle. Matthew and Luke include further material peculiar to each of them. They are abbreviated as M for Matthew’s special material and L for Luke’s. The consensus of scholarly opinion considers the Synoptic Gospels as the version of the teaching of Jesus which has undergone the least amount of doctrinal manipulation. Mark, Matthew, and Luke are therefore the most important sources in our inquiry.” (The Authentic Gospel of Jesus pp. xii)

 

“Before offering other observations about the structure of Matthews Gospel, I must take a brief detour to introduce modern theories for solving the “synoptic problem.” “Synoptic” means “seeing with” or “seen with.” It is a technical term, borrowed from Greek, that is used to express how the first three Gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, all seem to be telling much the same story, with similar or identical events and sayings, parables, and teachings, sometimes in identical wording. The three have much wording, as well as their basic outlines, alike. Why this is the case is called “the synoptic problem.” There have been many different theories: Matthew was written first, Mark used Matthew but abbreviated it, and Luke used Matthew and Mark. Or perhaps Mark was the earliest, Matthew used Mark, and Luke used both Matthew and Mark. The hypothesis- and we must remember that it is only a hypothesis; we have no proof- accepted by most scholars today suggests that both Matthew and Luke used Mark, but independently of each other. But Matthew and Luke both share other material, often in the same wording, that they cannot have found in Mark. Most scholars also believe, therefore, that there existed another written source we no longer possess, a source that consisted mainly of sayings of Jesus. They call that hypothetical document “Q” from the German word Quelle, “source”… Many scholars believe that Matthew and Luke each had access to this Q source and also Mark, and that both Matthew and Luke took the basic outlines for their Gospels and many of their events from Mark, and many of the sayings from Q. That hypothesis, or one like it, allows scholars to compare sayings and events as narrated in Mark, Luke, and Matthew to see how each author uses his “source” material (either Mark or the hypothetical Q) to construct his own account. We can observe, that is, the editorial activity of each author to discern what his particular interests and tendencies are -his particular “theology,” if we may use the word in a rather loose sense. (New Testament History and Literature pp 96-97)

 

Furthermore, when Matthew and Luke used Mark, they edited it as needed to suit their theology and themes and there are many examples of this.

 

“Matthew and Luke did not always keep Mark’s sequences, and they moved some of the stories to other places in their gospels. Thus, for example, Matthew did not put the story of the healing of the paralytic where it would go if he had been following Mark’s order, in his ch. 4, but rather with other miracle stories in ch. 9. The periscopes could be moved to suit the interests of each author. This reminds us once again that the gospels are not biographies in the modern sense of the word.” (The Historical Figure of Jesus pp. 130)

 

“The account of the raising of the girl is detailed in Mark, abridged in Matthew, and confused in Luke. In Mark Jesus, accompanied to the house by his three favorite apostles, Peter, James, and John, was met there by a crowd of wailers. He told them that the girl was only sleep. The villagers found Jesus’ comment ridiculous, but were promptly dismissed, so that the subsequent events were witnesses only by Jesus, his three favorite companions and the parents of the girl. However, according to Matthew’s account the actual raising of the girl by Jesus took place without other spectators. The child, we are told, was resurrected by a formula quoted in Mark in colloquial Aramaic: Talitha cum, ‘Little girl, I say to you, arise!’ Literally it is a familiar reference to a girl child and means, ‘Kid [i.e. little goat], get up!’… Matthew altogether omits the command, and Luke abbreviates it to ‘Child, arise!’ (Luke 8:54); for his Greek-speaking non-Jewish readers Aramaic would have been double Dutch. Mark and Matthew simply note that the ‘dead’ girl rose from her bed. Luke, however, specifies that ‘her spirit returned’, thus specifying that this was a case of the resurrection of the dead… According to Mark the girl ‘immediately…walked’, and all the astounded witnesses were ordered by Jesus to keep the story to themselves. In Luke only the parents were expressly bound to secrecy; Peter, James and John, the other witnesses, needed no such reminder. Matthew (9:26) omits the command and states instead that the news spread like wildfire throughout the whole district.” (The Authentic Gospel of Jesus pp. 11)

 

“The disciples of Jesus, after their failure to expel a demon from a dumb boy, were challenged by local scribes. Jesus apparently did not know what the debate was about, nor was he aware of the length of the boy’s illness, and consequent had to inquire. Such questions are typical in the account of Mark, who had no scruples in admitting lack of knowledge on the part of Jesus (cf. Mark 9:33 in no. 18 below). By the time Matthew and Luke wrote their Gospels, an imperfection of this kind could no longer be attributed to the Son of God. In consequence, they omitted the questions.” (The Authentic Gospel of Jesus pp. 19)

 

“(Mark 9:33-34; Matthew 18:1; Luke 9:46) Mark again depicts Jesus as ignorant of the thoughts of his disciples. As before, the question is omitted in Matthew and Luke. In fact Luke (9:47) explicitly denies any lack of knowledge on Jesus’ part: ‘Jesus perceived the thoughts of their hearts.’ This is a latter attempt to rectify the tradition of Mark.” (The Authentic Gospel of Jesus pp. 20)

 

“(Matthew 28:10) The words put on the lips of Jesus by Matthew are part of the confused accounts of the ‘post-resurrection’ events. According to Mark 16:8, the women who went to complete the burial rites on Sunday at dawn ran away terrified from the empty tomb and ‘said nothing to any one’. Luke 24:9, on the other hand, makes them report their experiences to ‘the eleven and to all the rest’, but these did not believe the ‘idle tale’ of the women (Luke 24:11). However, the two other disciples travelling to Emmaus met Jesus and immediately returned to Jerusalem to report the matter to the apostles…Matthew gives a completely different version of the story. Mary Magdalene and the ‘other’ Mary left the empty tomb with a mixture of ‘fear and great joy’ (Matt. 28:8) and told the apostles what they had seen and heard. Yet in an inconsequential manner Matthew speaks of another encounter of the women with Jesus, who dispatches them to his ‘brethren’ with the message to meet him in Galilee…The story is a highly elaborate supplement which is absent from the other Gospels. It fills the hole in Mark concerning the resurrection appearances of Jesus.” (The Authentic Gospel of Jesus pp. 28-29)

 

These quotes collectively highlight the complex and dynamic nature of the Gospel narratives, shedding light on the diverse perspectives and intentions of the authors. Matthew and Luke deviated from Mark's sequencing, moving stories to different places in their texts to suit their specific themes and audiences. This manipulation of content challenges the modern notion of biographies, emphasizing that the Gospels were not straightforward historical accounts but tailored presentations of Jesus' life and teachings. We are not reading a first-hand diary of ‘life with Jesus in Galilee’, but an edited collection of individual events that may originally have had another context.

 

“In their final version, that is to say in the form in which they have reached us, the aim of these Gospels was to transmit, not the report of a chronicler, but the doctrinal message of the early church. Their purpose was primarily didactic, not historical.” (The Authentic Gospel of Jesus pp. x)

 

How about the language of the Gospels? We know that Jesus spoke Aramaic and if the Gospels are the eyewitness recollection of his words then one should suspect them to be in the same language. However, this is not the case as they are written in Greek.

 

“Ideally this analysis should be applied to the original language of the teaching of Jesus, who spoke Aramaic… However, our four Gospels have survived in Greek, and scholars unanimously maintain that they were directly composed in Greek; they are not translations from a Semitic original….This means that none of the canonical Gospels can reach back directly to Jesus. Since during the first centuries of Christianity the vast majority of members of the church were Greek-speaking…they needed the teaching of Jesus in Greek… the Aramaic originals of the sayings of Jesus have all been allowed to fade from the memory.” (The Authentic Gospel of Jesus pp. x-xi)

 

One of the pieces of evidence supporting the original composition of the New Testament Gospels in Greek is the use of the Septuagint (LXX), a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, in their quotations of the Old Testament. When the Gospel writers, including Luke, quote the Old Testament in their texts, they often use the Septuagint version, indicating their familiarity with the Greek translation rather than the original Hebrew. A notable example can be found in Luke 4:16-21, where Jesus reads from the scroll of the prophet Isaiah in a synagogue. The wording of the passage closely aligns with the Septuagint version of Isaiah 61:1-2, demonstrating that Luke was drawing from the Greek translation of the Old Testament.

 

“(Luke 4:16-19,21) Luke’ quotation comes from the Greek Septuagint and not from the Hebrew Isaiah which would have been read in a Galilean synagogue.” (The Authentic Gospel of Jesus pp. 30)

 

We have Gospels that were written in a language Jesus did not speak, not by eyewitness accounts, written decades after his death for theological purposes, and yet we must use them to derive the historical Jesus. The question then becomes how we must do so. However, historians and scholars of the New Testament have created criteria to determine what could possibly be the words of the historical Jesus.

        

“The first and perhaps most important such methodological rule or guideline is the criterion of multiple attestation. An event or saying- or perhaps simply a hypothesis of what Jesus was like- that is found in more than one of our independent witnesses has a better chance of representing the historical Jesus. The occurrence in that sentence of ‘independent’ is important. We have seen that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke both used Mark as one of their sources, so finding a saying, even word for word, in Mark, Matthew, and Luke would not count as evidence from three different sources, but only one: Mark provides the tradition, and Matthew and Luke repeat it from him. But if one form of a parable occurs in Mark, and a different form of the same parable is found in Matthew and Luke together, we would then have two sources. Mark passes along the parable, and Matthew and Luke got a different form from Q source they both used independently. Or, if the theory of Q is rejected, as some scholars insist, we may suppose that Luke got his version of Matthew…The second most important methodological rule is known as the criterion of dissimilarity. Once we have ascertained the thematic and theological tendency of the writing itself, a saying or event that seems to go against that tendency or against the general beliefs or assumptions of early Christianity more generally- has a better likelihood of being historical…If a saying goes against the author’s own agenda, it may constitute material surviving from before their writing. It may even have come originally from Jesus himself.” (New Testament History and Literature pp 185)

 

“There is one passage, however, that I believe provides a good example of passing only the criterion of dissimilarity, but that I would argue does go back to the historical Jesus. In Mark 10:17-18, a man asks Jesus, ‘Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?’ Jesus answers, ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.’ Although Jesus proceeds to answer the man, the first response is rather shocking. A Christian Gospel denying that Jesus is good? And further implying that he is not God? The saying has no multiple attestation (Matthew and Luke seem to merely to follow Mark here), but I think it very unlikely that any Christian writer would have been invented a saying in which Jesus seems to deny both that he is good and that he is God… Besides these two criteria, scholars sometimes list other as well. One is simply that the insistence that something cannot go back to the historical Jesus if it does not fit what we know of the social-historical context of his life in Palestine in the first part of the first century… it is really just the common historical goal of avoiding anachronism. For example, when Matthew has Jesus talk about ‘the church’ in Matthew 18:17, we may be certain that the historical Jesus did not make those statements. The church did not exist in his lifetime, and by all the evidence, as I will urge later, the historical Jesus was expecting the kingdom of God, not the founding of the Christian Church. We may be certain that Jesus did not make the kinds of ‘I am’ statements from the Fourth Gospel we analyzed in the last chapter. It is very unlikely that any pious Jew would claim the divine name for himself at the time of Jesus. And it took years for Christology to develop so that such things could be said even by Christians about Jesus. Also in John, Jesus is depicted as using certain puns, as playing on language, in a way possible only in Greek. When Jesus speaks with Nicodemus about being born ‘again’ or ‘from above’ (John 3:3; the Greek can be translated either way), the play of language makes sense only in Greek. The sayings, therefore could not go back to the historical Jesus, who probably did not speak Greek but taught in Aramaic. Each of these is an example of something we find in our Gospels that cannot be attributed to the historical Jesus…” (New Testament History and Literature pp 188-189)

 

The first criterion mentioned is the criterion of multiple attestation. If a particular event or saying about Jesus is found in more than one independent source it is more likely to represent the historical Jesus. The second criterion discussed is the criterion of dissimilarity. This criterion suggests that a saying or event that contradicts the general beliefs or assumptions of early Christianity is more likely to be historical. An example provided is a passage in Mark 10:17-18, where Jesus seemingly denies being good and implies he is not God. This statement contradicts typical Christian beliefs and is seen as a potential indicator of its historical authenticity. Additionally, scholars consider the social-historical context of Jesus’ life in Palestine in the first century to avoid anachronisms. Sayings or events that do not fit the context of Jesus’ time are often considered later developments or additions. For instance, references to concepts like “the church” or intricate puns in Greek, attributed to Jesus in the Gospels, are regarded as unlikely since they do not align with the historical Jesus, who likely taught in Aramaic and lived before the establishment of the Christian Church. These criteria serve as important tools for scholars when evaluating the historical authenticity of the words and actions attributed to Jesus in the New Testament and for this blog.

      As for the Gospel of John, it is considered to be the last canonical Gospel to be written and scholars have several reasons to think so. One key factor is the advanced theological concepts present in John, including the profound understanding of Jesus’ divinity as being the Logos of God who is considered to be equal to the Father. These ideas suggest a more developed theological framework within the early Christian community indicating a later date of composition. Furthermore, John's Gospel lacks many of the synoptic parallels, leading scholars to believe that it may have been written after the synoptic accounts, allowing for theological and literary elaboration. While Matthew, Mark, and Luke share numerous common stories, parables, and sayings of Jesus, John’s Gospel often presents different events and teachings. Perhaps the author of John did not have access to the synoptic Gospels or simply did not think they were worth taking from. However, if the former is true, whatever is shared between the synoptics and John can be counted as two independent sources.

 

“From the very beginning of the Gospel of John, we sense that we are in a different world. This doesn't sound like the synoptic Gospels, And even though the Gospel of Thomas was very different from the three synoptic Gospels--having no narrative, only sayings, and presenting a very different theology and worldview—Thomas at least had many sayings reminiscent of the Synoptics. But John sounds different even from Thomas… Readers quickly notice also that there is much more talking in the Gospel of John than in the other Gospels. Mark tells us that Jesus was a great teacher, but he gives us surprisingly little actual teaching in his Gospel, compared with the others. Matthew and Luke have long stretches of Jesus’ teaching, but they don't have anything like the extended sermons and dialogues that go on for chapter after chapter in John. Even Thomas, which consists almost entirely of teaching and includes almost no narrative, shas nothing like the sermons or dialogues of John. We can, though, flip open the Gospel of John at almost any point and find similar scenes: Jesus begins with some teaching, often in conversation with a person or group of people; a few sayings of Jesus that don't make obvious sense to his dialogue partners provoke a conflict; Jesus goes into long monologues, sometimes interrupted by the frustrated comments of the people; and the scene often ends either in confusion or in outright eruption of conflict or attempted violence. All these elements of the writing of the Gospel of John--repetitions, philosophical-sounding discussions and statements, scenes of failed dialogue, long stretches of Jesus’ teaching—set the Fourth Gospel apart from the others. It has its own distinct theology and style.” (New Testament History and Literature pp 152-154)

 

“There are also big differences in how John narrates the crucifixion of Jesus. According to all three synoptic Gospels, for instance, the crucifixion takes place on the first day of Passover. The Last Supper in the Synoptic is a Passover meal itself. According to Jewish reckoning, the beginning of a day was at sunset of what we would consider the previous day. So after sundown on what we would call Thursday, Jesus ate a Passover meal at the beginning of Passover, and he was crucified on Friday, the first day of Passover. John provides a completely different account. In John, the Last Supper is not a Passover seder. Instead, Jesus is executed on the ‘day of Preparation,’ that is, the day before Passover when people are having their Passover lambs slaughtered and sacrificed before they then eat the lambs along with the rest of the seder that evening (John 19:14, 19:31, 19:42).” (New Testament History and Literature pp 158)

 

“The identity of the fourth evangelist is uncertain. He is held by Christian tradition to be identical with the apostle John, son of Zebedee, but this claim is not backed by any solid historical evidence. This Gospel has little in common with Mark, Matthew and Luke and the doctrinal development contained in it points to a period after the Synoptics in the beginning of the second century AD (roughly AD 100-110). The bulk of the long, rambling and repetitious speeches of Jesus included in John reflect the ideas of an author steeped in Hellenistic philosophical and mystical speculation, who reshaped the portrait of Jesus two to three generations after his death. This writer can scarcely be identical with the apostle John who is described in the Acts of the Apostles as ‘uneducated, common man’ (acts 4:13). The violent antisemitism of the fourth evangelist makes it even questionable that he was a Jew… the Fourth Gospel will not be taken into account in our investigation.” (The Authentic Gospel of Jesus pp. xii-xiii)

 

“And where was Jesus family originally from? According to Luke, Jesus’ parents were from Nazareth, in Galilee. They journeyed to Bethlehem, supposedly the ancestral home of Joseph, for a ‘census,’ stayed a little over a month, and returned to their home in Nazareth (Luke 1:26-2:39). According to Matthew, they simply are at home in Bethlehem at the beginning; they live in Judea (Matt 2:1-11; see also 2:23). They flee to Egypt for at least a couple of years (see Matt 2:13-15). They intend to return ‘home’ to Bethlehem, but Joseph decides, warned in a dream, to move the family to Nazareth in Galilee instead (Matt 2:19-23). If all we had as a source were the Gospel of John, however, we would assume that Jesus family simply was from Galilee and that he was the son of both Mary and Joseph. The Jews say they know his father is Joseph (John 6:42), and that he is from Galilee and therefore cannot be the Messiah (7:41, 7:52).” (New Testament History and Literature pp 157)

 

      As mentioned before, each evangelist had their own motivations, theology, themes, and audiences when composing their Gospels. In terms of the words spoken by Jesus in the Gospels which are often commands or parables, are used to make the stories interesting. Some scholars do not believe these words were actually said by Jesus; they think the Gospel writers made them up. Most of these words come from the books of Mark, Matthew, and Luke, which tell the main story of Jesus’ life. Many of the words are about healing or casting out evil spirits, showing what Jesus did in public. Even though these words do not include a lot of teaching, the commands during these events are important. They help us understand what kind of person Jesus was and what he expected from his followers. Diving into the themes and messages of each individual Gospel will help us understand who Jesus is in each.

      Starting with Mark, the opening sections of Mark are dramatized summaries, in which Jesus’ life is made to consist only of quick challenges and brief and telling replies. We are not reading a circumstantial diary, one that would give us access to an average day in the life of Jesus. One of the major themes in Mark is the “Messianic Secret”. The concept refers to the mysterious and enigmatic way in which Jesus in the Gospel of Mark often instructs his disciples and others not to reveal his identity as the Messiah or the Son of Man. Throughout the Gospel of Mark, Jesus frequently performs miracles and exorcisms, but after these events, he instructs those who witnessed them not to tell anyone about what they have seen or experienced. This phenomenon is sometimes referred to as the “Messianic Secret” as Jesus keeps his messiahship a secret from the general public. Scholars have offered various interpretations of the Messianic Secret. Some suggest that Mark used this motif to highlight the true identity of Jesus gradually unfolding over the course of the narrative. Others propose that it was a literary device employed by the author to create suspense and emphasize the theme of divine secrecy. Additionally, some scholars argue that the secrecy motif might reflect the historical context in which the early Christian community lived, where open proclamation of Jesus as the Messiah could have been dangerous. It is important to note that the Messianic Secret is a specific motif found in the Gospel of Mark and is not explicitly mentioned in the other Gospels as each Gospel has its unique theological perspectives and emphases when it comes to portraying the life and teachings of Jesus. Another major theme in Mark is that of the “Suffering Servant”. Throughout the Gospel, Jesus makes several predictions of his suffering, death by crucifixion, and resurrection due to his messiahship. Yet also throughout the Gospel, his disciples are in constantly disbelief of this for the simple reason that no one before Christianity believed that the messiah was to be killed. Rather it was the belief that the messiah would bring a sword to vanquish the Roman Empire and establish the Kingdom of God. One should expect that his disciples would celebrate his resurrection then as this is what their master constantly preached but instead they are surprisingly in fear and scatter. Despite these explicit predictions, when these events started to unfold, his closest followers did not react as if they had prior knowledge of what was happening. Instead, they displayed fear, confusion, and disbelief, and some even denied their association with Jesus. One possibility is that Jesus did not actually predict his fate, and the disciples' bewildered and fearful reactions were natural responses to the unexpected and distressing events.

 

“On the one hand Jesus repeatedly foretells his death and resurrection to his closest followers. Most of the announcements are made in general terms: Jesus would be arrested, suffer, be killed, but rise after three days or on the third day. One group of sayings, however, is furnished with extra details: he would be handed over to the Gentiles, mocked, spat upon, scourged, and crucified (Mark 10:32-34; Matt. 20:17-19; Luke 18:31-34; Matt. 26:2). The predictions are not mysterious; on the contrary, they are expressed in plain words. One of the evangelists explicitly stresses that Jesus intended to be understood, and his words remembered: 'Let these words sink into your ears' (Luke 9:44). In sum, we are left in no doubt that the apostles had been put in the picture by Jesus about the forthcoming happenings, not once or twice but several times. On the other hand, how did these same apostles and disciples react when the predicted events began to materialize? They certainly showed no foreknowledge of the scenario. When Jesus was arrested, all his companions fled (Mark 14:50; Matt. 26:56). When confronted, Peter even denied that he had anything to do with Jesus or even that he knew him (Mark 14:66-71; Matt. 26:69-74; Luke 22:54-60). None of the apostles, or for that matter any member of the family of Jesus. accompanied him to Golgotha, according to the Synoptics. Only some courageous Galilean women watched him die on the cross (Mark 15:40-41; Matt. 27:55-56). Luke tries to improve on Mark's depressing report by adding that all the 'acquaintances’ of Jesus ‘stood at a distance’ (Luke 23:49). But 'acquaintance’ would hardly be the word to designate members of his inner circle or his family. After the death of Jesus on the cross the apostles do not seek comfort in the thought that in three days' time all will be well. On the contrary, when the women who had gone to the tomb to complete the burial rites reported that the body of Jesus had disappeared, they encountered only total disbelief voiced with the customary male superiority of the age. In fact, for the apostles the words of the women were léros, i.e. silly nonsense (Luke 24:11). According to Luke, neither the two disciples travelling to Emmaus nor the apostles in Jerusalem recognize Jesus when he appears to them after his resurrection. In Matthews totally different account of the manifestation of the risen Jesus to his eleven disciples on a Galilean mountain, even some of these are said to have doubted (Matt. 28:17). Would people who had been assured in advance by their charismatic and prophetic teacher that the tragic events would be followed promptly by a happy ending have displayed such profound incredulity? Even allowing for the momentary shock and natural fear caused by the arrest of Jesus in the depth of the night, the apostles should surely have recalled the sequence of events so often and so recently rehearsed before them by Jesus? Hence the irreconcilable descriptions present us with the following dilemma. Either Jesus did not predict his fate, and the cowardly behavior of the disoriented disciples resulted from natural distress, weakness and disarray; or he actually forewarned them, in which case the inglorious conduct of each single one of the apostles is inexplicable, and the distorted canvas must be entirely of the making of the writers of the Gospels. Weighing up the pros and cons, it is easier to account for the later insertion of inauthentic predictions than to provide a believable explanation for the undignified conduct of the closest associates of Jesus possessing full knowledge of the events to come.” (The Authentic Gospel of Jesus pp. 385-387)

 

Part of this theme is the imminent coming of the Kingdom of God. The author of Mark wanted his audience to know that just like the glorified messiah first had to suffer and die for us to attain glory then we must do the same until he comes back. The author of Mark believed the second coming would happen in his lifetime as he is influenced by Paul who will be discussed later. I would contend that Mark’s theology is closest to Paul’s compared to the rest of the three Gospels and this will be made evident. In fact, despite the earliest Gospel being Mark and the first book of the New Testament being Matthew, the oldest surviving written materials of Christianity are the letters of Paul. The Gospels were all written twenty, thirty, or forty years after the letters of Paul, Most scholars believe that the oldest of Paul's letters is 1 Thessalonians, which is dated to around the year 50 C.E. (New Testament History and Literature pp 15-16). As decades past and as the church grew, Jesus did not return. Therefore, to save Jesus from this blunder, the evangelists had to devise new interpretations and editions to Mark in their own Gospels.

        

“Finally there is the powerful statement of Jesus formally affirming the actual establishment of the Kingdom of God in his own generation: ‘Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power' (Mark 9:1; cf. Luke 9:27; see chapter 8, no. 8). This was also no doubt the original wording of Matthew. However, it was subsequently changed to ‘there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the son of Man coming in his kingdom' (Matt. 16:28). According to this reading the advent of the Kingdom follows the Parousia of the 'son of man', that is to say, not the historical ministry of Jesus, but his Second Coming. The formulation attested by Mark (9:1) represents without any doubt the authentic saying of Jesus. For no one would invent, and no community would preserve, an announcement of the imminent arrival of the Kingdom of God which was patently not fulfilled. Indeed, by the end of the first century, it created a serious embarrassment for the primitive church. Matthew's allusion to the Parousia was aimed at remedying the situation.” (The Authentic Gospel of Jesus pp. 381)

 

One of the most striking things about Jesus is that, despite his expectation that the end would soon arrive, and despite the fact that he thought about the coming Kingdom on a larger scale, he nevertheless left behind a rich body of teachings that stresses the relationship between individuals and God in the here and now. Another theme related to these two is Christ’s vicarious atonement. Both Mark and his influence, Paul, believed that Jesus’ death was not an accident on his part but fulfilled a purpose. It was a sacrifice for the sins of humanity. This theme is found also in Matthew who takes from Mark and is also found in John. This can be seen in Mark 10:45 and Matthew 20:28. Surprisingly, Luke views the death of Jesus in a different manner in his Gospel and Acts that will be discussed later but in short he believed that he was a martyr prophet and all true prophets suffer but his death does not cover sins. It is still strange that Mark clearly believes in a post-crucifixion resurrection but does not visualize it in his Gospel as it ends at verse 8 of chapter 16 according to the best and oldest manuscripts.

 

“Mark has no accounts of anyone seeing Jesus but the young man who meets the women at the tomb and tells them explicitly to go tell the disciples they will see Jesus in Galilee. Matthew relates that the women who first went to the tomb are told by an angel to go tell the disciples they will see Jesus in Galilee. As they run to convey this message they meet Jesus, who repeats the message, even more explicitly, “Tell my brothers to go to Galilee and there they will see me” (Matthew 28:10). Matthew closes his gospel with the scene on a mountain in Galilee, clearly somewhat later, in which the eleven disciples see him, though he mentions that some of them doubted it was Jesus. Luke writes that later on that first Sunday two men who were walking on a road outside Jerusalem met Jesus and shared a meal with him, at first not recognizing him. Subsequently he says that Peter then saw Jesus, but no details are given, only the report. That evening Jesus appears in the room where the eleven disciples are gathered and eats with them, showing them his physical body of flesh and bones and convincing them he is not a ghost or spirit. John says that Jesus first appears to Mary Magdalene, outside the tomb on Sunday morning. Later that evening he appears to the rest of the disciples, showing them his wounds, but Thomas is not present. Eight days later he appears again, where they are staying, and Thomas is able to see and even touch his wounds, which convinces Thomas he is not seeing a ghost.” (Paul and Jesus pp. 85)

 

These discrepancies are significant when examining the Bible and the attempts by evangelists to reconcile and harmonize the accounts concerning the ending of the Gospel of Mark. Each Gospel provides a different version of events, with variations in the number of witnesses, their interactions with Jesus, the locations of these encounters, and the details of what happened. These differences raise questions about the accuracy and reliability of the accounts, leading scholars and theologians to analyze and reconcile these contradictions in their interpretations of the Bible. Regarding the ending of Mark, it is well known among scholars that the Gospel of Mark originally ended abruptly at Mark 16:8, where the women who visited Jesus’ tomb flee in fear and tell no one about their encounter. Later manuscripts and versions of the Gospel include additional verses (Mark 16:9-20) describing post-resurrection appearances and other events but they are forgeries in Mark. The last theme to discuss in Mark, also heavily seen in Paul’s letters which will be discussed later, is that there is a new covenant in Christ such that the Mosaic laws are void. This is clearly expressed in Mark 7:19, “‘since it enters not the heart but the stomach and goes out into the sewer?’ (Thus he declared all foods clean.)” However, the author of Matthew who has the Gospel of Mark in front of him, disagrees with this theology, and edits it accordingly. Matthew continues to hold the laws of the Torah as binding upon the new Christians. The gospel writers did not wildly invent material. They developed it, shaped it and directed it in the ways they wished.

        

“Here again, Jesus makes the commandment even more demanding. He teaches that although the lay allowed some retribution, his intensification of that law means that his followers must “turn the other cheek” give up an outer cloak after having been robbed of one's coat, and carry a soldier's pack two miles when the law requires only one (Matt 5:38-41). Throughout the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus does the opposite of what many Christians have thought he was doing: rather than abrogating the Jewish law and replacing it with something more “loving” or “merciful,” he teaches that people should not only keep the Mosaic law but even go beyond it, go the second mile, internalize the intent of the law, obey the law and more. Now, it is not at all clear that Jesus, even in the story as told by Mark, was going so far as to get rid of kosher laws entirely. That is how Mark interprets the scene. Matthew, though, does not. Although Matthew takes the story and much of the actual wording from Mark, he leaves out Mark's parenthetical remark. Instead, Jesus simply does what many prophets of Israel had already done; he emphasizes that the ethical demands of the law are more important than its commandments about sacrifice or ritual… (Matt 15:18-19)… Matthew leaves out Mark’s comment on the meaning of Jesus’ teaching here because he does not believe that Jesus “declared all foods clean”… There is no breaking of the law here, or any teaching that lessens the commands of the law.” (New Testament History and Literature pp 101-102)

 

Moving onto the next Gospel, Matthew, he portrays Jesus paradoxically as both a keeper of the Torah preacher who taught this to his disciples and at the same time one who sends the good news onto all nations after his resurrection. One must ask, which did Jesus truly teach? It will be made clear that one is true over the other.

“Did his thought proceed along a nationalistic line, or was his vision cosmopolitan and universal? There are sayings in the Gospels which point to either direction, and both stances are expressed in absolute terms so that no room is left for any compromise. The most striking and incontrovertible statements are contained in Matthew’s special section (M). There Jesus bluntly asserted that his mission was exclusively intended for Jews: ‘I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel’ (Matt. 15:24). He gave the same pro-Jewish directive to his apostles, too. Not only were they positively ordered to teach, heal and exorcise only ‘the lost sheep of the house of Israel’ but they were also expressly forbidden to minister among non-Jews: ‘Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans’ (Matt. 10:5-6). In general terms, the Kingdom of God was for Jews alone…These declarations, patent in themselves, are further supported by saying in which Jesus declared non-Jews to be unworthy to receive his teaching. Here Mark joins Matthew and both speak with a single voice. In the story of the Syrophoenician woman Jesus states: ‘It is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs’ (Mark 7:27, Matt. 15:26). The meaning is clear: the ‘dogs’, a sarcastic nickname for Gentiles, should not usurp ‘the [Jewish] children’s bread’…Yet against these programmatic pronouncements can be set another series of equally clear affirmations which plainly broadcast the opposite view… In it, as reported in Matthew and in the longer ending of Mark, the risen Christ charged them to evangelize the whole world……Either Jesus adopted a strictly pro-Jewish stance and the later introduction into the Gospels of pro-Gentile leanings must reflect the point of view of the early church, which was by then almost exclusively non-Jewish. Or it was Jesus who adopted the universalist stand, and this was replaced at a later stage by Jewish exclusivism. As far as Jewish exclusivism is concerned, if it had nothing to do with Jesus, but was a later polemical insertion into the Gospels by Palestinian Judaeo-Christians fighting against the Hellenistic churches, it is highly unlikely that it would have remained unaltered after the victory of the Gentile church over the Jewish branch of the Jesus movement or indeed would have survived at all. For ultimately it was the Gentile church that provided a permanent home for the Synoptic Gospels. In the light of the criterion of dissimilarity, we must recognize that the view that the message of Jesus was meant only for Jews went strongly against the grain in the later, mostly Gentile, primitive church. It was the complete opposite of what the non-Jewish majority of the users of the Gospels wanted to hear. To the previously cited evidence we can further add Jesus' statements on the permanent validity of the Law of Moses: Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished (Matt. 5:17-18) and it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one dot of the law to become void (Luke 16:17). Both these sayings are deeply confusing for Gentile Christians. Put differently, unless the claim concerning the validity of the Law had been known to have originated from, and enjoyed the authority of Jesus, it is quite unlikely that the evangelists would have freely invented it, and have produced a teaching which was plainly embarrassing and disturbing for their communities. On the other hand, the interpolation of a reaching which advocates an open approach to the Gentiles would have pleased, strengthened and encouraged those non-Jewish inhabitants of Syria, Asia Minor and Greece who accepted the gospel announced by Paul, while the mission of the rest of the apostles among Palestinian Jews was progressively failing. The criterion of multiple attestation confirms this interpretation. Not only do we find Jewish exclusivism in Jesus' pronouncements in the Gospels already referred to, but it is also mirrored in the history of primitive Christianity as pictured in the Acts of the Apostles. In the early days of the Palestinian church, no Gentile was considered admissible into the Christian community without first joining the Jewish fold through becoming a fully-fledged proselyte (see Acts, chapters 10-11).” (The Authentic Gospel of Jesus pp. 376-379)

 

I hope you as a dedicated reader and bibliophile are reading all these long quotations throughout the blog! On one hand, there are instances where Jesus explicitly states that his mission is directed solely towards the lost sheep of the house of Israel, forbidding his apostles from ministering to non-Jews. For example, in Matthew 15:24, Jesus says, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” Similarly, in Matthew 10:5-6, he instructs his apostles not to go among the Gentiles or the Samaritans. Furthermore, there are passages where Jesus appears to dismiss non-Jews, referring to them as “dogs” in comparison to the children of Israel, emphasizing a Jewish exclusivist perspective. However, after the resurrection, Jesus charges his disciples to evangelize the whole world, indicating a broader mission encompassing all nations. The tension between these perspectives raises a crucial question: was the initial exclusivist stance attributed to Jesus a later addition by certain Jewish Christian factions, or did Jesus himself adopt a more universalist view that was later replaced by Jewish exclusivism? If the exclusivist perspective had been a later addition, it would likely have been revised or omitted, especially considering the dominance of the Gentile church in preserving the Gospels. Additionally, statements affirming the eternal validity of the Mosaic Law, attributed to Jesus, would have been perplexing for Gentile Christians, making it unlikely for these statements to be fabricated. In contrast, the introduction of passages supporting a more open approach to Gentiles would have been welcomed by non-Jewish converts, especially followers of Paul, who faced challenges in their mission to Jewish communities. The presence of Jewish exclusivism in both Jesus’ pronouncements and the Acts strengthens the argument for its authenticity, as it aligns with the historical context of early Christian debates and practices, where Gentiles were initially required to convert to Judaism before joining the Christian community. Could it be that Jesus’ teachings changed throughout the Gospel such that at first it was only for the Jews but after his resurrection the disciples matured in faith and were ready to preach to the gentiles? This too seems unlikely. To start with, the public career of Jesus was too short to accommodate a progressive development of ideas. Even the 2–3-year chronology of the Gospel of John would not provide enough time for the gradual achievement of a U-turn. But with the exception of his account of the last days of Jesus, John’s narrative is more fiction than history when it is compared with the Synoptics as previously established. Mark wrote shortly after AD 70 and thus predates John by some forty years. Yet he proposed a much shorter chronology, and Matthew and Luke in the last quarter of the first century AD copied Mark’s story-telling. With a single Passover recorded in the Synoptics, the public career of Jesus had to be of a maximum of one year’s duration. I believe that the historical Jesus only saw himself as a prophet to the nation of Israel and kept to the Jewish law. Matthew is the most ‘Jewish’ of all the Gospels and perhaps his audience was also Jewish. Another important theme in Matthew that is also found in Mark but not in Luke is Jesus’ childhood. Examples of these contradictions show why the New Testament cannot be used as a reliable source of true history but rather function as a theological book.

 

“The exercise of this chapter can be duplicated for other issues of the New Testament. If one carefully compares the birth narratives presented by Matthew and Luke, one finds that it is next to impossible to harmonize them in any historically respectable way. Was Jesus' family from Nazareth, ending up in Bethlehem only because of a census (Luke), or was his family originally just from Bethlehem, moving to Nazareth only years later and after a sojourn in Egypt (Matthew)? Did they stay in Judea only a little over a month and then return immediately to Nazareth (Luke), or did they remain in Bethlehem for a period of up to two years and then spend additional time in Egypt before settling in Nazareth (Matthew)? Were there wise men who visited him (Matthew), or were there angels and shepherds (Luke)? Similar contradictions occur when one compares the resurrection appearances of the different Gospels. Did all Jesus’ appearances to his disciples take places only in and around Jerusalem (Luke), or did he appear to the eleven only later in Galilee (Matthew)? Did the appearances take place only over about a month’s time (Luke), or did he appear both in Judea earlier and some time later in Galilee (John)? The different accounts can be harmonized only by gymnastics not permitted to reputable modern historians. That is fine because the New Testament need not be regarded as a history book.” (New Testament History and Literature pp 75-76)

 

It is historically important that this census in Luke never happened. There is no record in the world where the Romans commanded everyone to go back to their hometown to be counted in a census, much less a hometown that their ancestors had not lived in for a thousand years. Bethlehem was David’s hometown in 1000 B.C.E. Clearly, Luke wanted to connect Jesus to David somehow and Matthew does the same in a completely different way.

Moving onto the next Gospel, Luke, we know that Mark mentioned earlier was written about the year 70 C.E. as he predicts the destruction of the Temple but does not go into detail about the destruction of Jerusalem as it did not happen yet when the author of Mark wrote. As Luke used Mark as a source then it must be after 70 C.E. But the question then becomes how long after? One must remember that in the ancient world there was no JSTOR that one can easily find documents or manuscripts. It took slaves to copy each Gospel letter by letter and it took perhaps years to circulate these documents around the Roman Empire. Based on this, scholars think that the Gospel of Luke was written perhaps 50 years after the letters of Paul. One surprising theme in Luke is that he does not depict Jesus as an atoning sacrifice for the sins of humanity. Instead, forgiveness in Luke is through repentance to God and striving towards the prophetic archetype. This can be found in parables such as the prodigal son in Luke 15. The story is about a younger son who asks his father for his share of the inheritance and then goes to a distant country where he wastes all his money in sinful living. When a famine strikes, the son finds himself in dire straits and decides to return home hoping to work as a servant for his father. To his surprise, his father not only welcomes him back but also celebrates his return with a grand feast. This gesture of unconditional love and forgiveness toward the wayward son illustrates God’s limitless compassion for those who repent and turn back to Him. It is not the case that the eldest son took the punishment of the younger son who sought forgiveness as an atonement sacrifice rather one can always return to God no matter what. The verses of Mark 10:45 and Matthew 20:28 are omitted from Luke as well which suggested he purposely exercised it from his account. Another change from the other synoptics is the words of the Roman centurion after the death in Luke 23:47, “Surely this was a righteous man”. Compare this to Mark 15:39 where the same character says, “Truly this man was God’s Son!” or in some manuscripts, “a son of God”. While the Gospel still contains the crucifixion and resurrection, one must ask then what was the purpose of his death? This can be answered by examining the Christology of the Gospels.

 

“What kind of teaching about the nature of Jesus, what different ‘Christologies,’ do we find in early Christian texts? According to the Gospel of Mark, Jesus is certainly the Son of God (Mark 15:39). He is also known in Mark as the Son of Man and by other titles as well. Moreover, in Mark, Jesus is especially the suffering Son of God whose death is understood as ‘a ransom for many’ (Mark 10:45; taken over also by Matt 20:28). Whereas Matthew follows Mark in taking the death of Jesus to be a ransom sacrifice, Luke does not. Although we have seen that Luke takes over much he finds in Mark, he does not copy Mark 10:45, and the reason he does not is that he does not agree with that Christology. Luke does not interpret the death of Jesus as an atoning sacrifice. We can see this in several ways, as in Luke’s omission of Mark 10:45. Another is how Luke changes what he gets from Mark elsewhere. For example, Mark portrays Jesus as silent in anguish before and at the time of his death, even asking God why God has abandoned him (Mark 15:34). Luke leaves out that saying of Jesus from his crucifixion scene. In Luke. Jesus goes to his death with full confidence and knowledge. Where Mark has the cry of lamentation on the lips of Jesus on the cross, Luke instead depicts Jesus as calmly and voluntarily giving up his spirit. ‘Father, into your hands I commend my spirit’ (Luke 23:46). Mark depicts the veil of the temple being torn just at the time of Jesus’ death (Mark 15:38); this is probably meant to signify that Jesus’ atoning death has now enabled humankind to gain access to the holy of holies, to God, by virtue of Jesus' death as ‘ransom.’ Luke moves the tearing of the veil to before the death of Jesus, probably precisely because he does not see Jesus’ death as an atoning sacrifice. On the contrary, as we saw in the previous chapters on Luke and Acts, Jesus’ death is the martyrdom of a righteous prophet, which is then reenacted in the death of Stephen and the sufferings of Paul and other Christian ‘witnesses’. This all reflects two different Christologies: the atoning, sacrificed Son of God in Mark and the exemplary martyr-prophet of Luke. As we have also seen, there is no death of Jesus at all in the Gospel of Thomas. Jesus’ death seems not to matter at all for that writer, Rather, Jesus is the divine revealer of secret gnosis that awakens the spark of knowledge and life in those destined to be saved and to return to their home with God. There is no interest in suffering in Thomas at all, except the attempt to escape the realm of suffering by the knowledge of the true nature of those who ‘know’. For the author of the Gospel of John, Jesus is fully equal to the Father; he is fully God He is the ‘I am’ who spoke to Moses out of the burning bush. He is also the descending and ascending redeemer, the bringer of light and knowledge and salvation. But unlike Luke and Thomas, John certainly does depict the death of Jesus as a sacrifice that takes away the ‘sin of the world.’ Jesus is the Lamb of God who is killed precisely at the time of the slaughter of the Passover lambs on the day of Preparation, John’s Gospel contains the highest Christology we have thus far seen.” (New Testament History and Literature pp 168-169)

 

For a full analysis of the different interpretations of the Christology presented in the Gospel of John, refer to my blog post appropriately titled, “The Christology of The Gospel of John”. I argue that the Christology of the synoptic Gospels is that of an “Exaltation Christology”. In this Christology, Jesus started off as a human being just like everyone else in terms of his ontology but either at his birth or baptism or resurrection, he is elevated in power and authority. This is sometimes called an “Adoptionist Christology”. Jesus is not a divine being by nature or ontologically one with God the Father as taught post Nicaea and I argue that this position was not taught by the early church fathers in my blog post titled, “Apostolic Succession: Unraveling the Threads of Early Christianity”. Rather he was elevated to a divine status by God. (How Jesus Became God pp. 230-232). This is in contrast with John who has a “high” Christology as Jesus began as divine as God’s Logos in heaven then became human or incarnated. Starting off with Mark, there is no mention of Jesus’ preexistence as seen in John nor is there mention of the virgin birth as seen in Matthew or Luke bur rather begins with John the Baptist baptizing. This should shock the Christian reader when they open to this Gospel since it is important both theologically and to the life of Jesus. Why did the author of Mark not include such a detail in his Gospel? Either he did not think such detail was important, or he did not know about it, or he did not believe in it. When Jesus was baptized, the heavens open up and the Spirit of God descends upon him and a voice from heaven says, “You are my beloved Son, in you I am well pleased” (Mark 1:9-11).

 

“This voice does not appear to be stating a preexisting fact. It appears to be making a declaration. It is at this time that Jesus becomes the Son of God for Mark’s Gospel. Immediately after this, Jesus begins his spectacular ministry, not only proclaiming the imminent arrival of God’s kingdom, but also healing all who are sick, showing that he is more powerful than the demonic spirits…He demonstrates that he has been given authority to forgive sins…Jesus’ glory can also be seen in his great miracles…If one always has to ask ‘in what sense’ is Jesus divine, for Mark, Jesus is divine in the sense that he is the one who has been adopted to be the Son of God at his baptism, not later at his resurrection.” (How Jesus Became God pp. 238-239)

 

Moving onto Luke, things become slightly more complicated as he has a different understanding of when Jesus became the Son of God.

        

“In one of my earlier books, Misquoting Jesus, I discuss the fact that we do not have the original copy of Luke, or Mark, or Paul's writings, or any of the early Christian texts that make up the New Testament. What we have are later copies in most instances, copies that were made many centuries later. These various copies all differ from one another, often in small ways, but sometimes in rather significant ways. One of the passages that has been changed in a significant way by later scribes involves the story of Jesus’s baptism in Luke. Scholars have long debated what the voice actually said at Jesus’s baptism in this Gospel. This is because most manuscripts indicate that the voice said the same thing that it says in Mark, “You are my beloved son, in you I am well pleased.” But in several of our old witnesses to the text, the voice says something else. It quotes Psalm 2:7: “You are my Son, today I have begotten you.” There are good reasons for thinking that this is what Luke originally wrote in this passage (Luke 3:22). It is a very stark saying, since it is when Jesus was baptized that he was “begotten”—that is, born—as the Son of God. The reason later scribes may have wanted to change the verse should be obvious: when scribes were copying their texts of Luke in later centuries, the view that Jesus was made the Son at the baptism was considered not just inadequate, but heretical. For later scribes Jesus was the preexistent Son of God, not one who became the Son at the baptism. Luke himself-whoever he was does not think Jesus was, preexistent Son of God. As it turns out, he does not think Jesus became the Son at the baptism either, as we will see. In the final form of Luke's Gospel, it appears that Jesus is to be thought of as becoming the Son of God, for the first time, at the moment of birth. Or, to be more precise, at the moment of his conception. (How Jesus Became God pp. 240)

 

This is made clear when looking at the annunciation scene between Mary and the angel Gabriel. Gabriel comes to Mary and tells her that she will conceive a child and she is shocked since no man has touched her. Gabriel responds with, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you and the Power of the Most High will overshadow you, therefore the one who is born will be called holy, the Son

of God” (Luke 1:35). Therefore, Jesus becomes Son of God not as his resurrection or baptism, but at his conception. Matthew and Luke both share the idea of the Virgin Birth of Jesus however there are a few key differences. One of the major differences is that the author of Matthew appeals to the Jewish Bible to explain why Mary needed to be a virgin. He specifically quotes  Isaiah 7:14, “A virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Immanuel”. Moving past the fact that the verse in Isaiah does not refer to a messianic prophecy in its immediate context and historical Jewish exegesis, and the fact that the word virgin is not used in the Hebrew rather she is called a “young woman” (this switched happened probably since the author of Matthew was quoting the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew), in both Gospels, it is not the case that Jesus existed before he was conceived.

      What does it mean to be the Son of God in the Gospels? In a Jewish context, “Son of God” does not mean ‘more than human’ or God incarnate. All Jews were Sons of God or even the (collective) Son of God, as in Hosea 11:1 or Exodus 4:22, “Israel is my first-born son”. Psalm 2:7 refers to the king of Israel as Son of God; Luke applies this verse to Jesus in Luke 3:21, but there is no reason to say that when he did so he redefined the term to mean more than human. If Jesus’ followers in Galilee, or those who saw his miracles, ever said that he was Son of God, they would have meant that he could rely on his heavenly Father to answer his prayers. There are two aspects to Jesus’ self-claim. One is the assertion of his own authority, which can be seen in all the “follow me” passages, especially those indicating that following him is done at high personal cost, Matthew 19:16-29. The second aspect of Jesus’ self-assertion is the claim of an immediate relationship to God, in the strict sense of unmediated. He regarded his relationship with God as especially intimate and we may be certain that he thought he had been especially commissioned to speak for God, and this conviction was based on a feeling of personal intimacy with God. Another major theme in the teaching of Jesus is the imminent coming of the Kingdom of God as mentioned earlier. John the Baptist expected the judgment to come soon. Jesus started his career by being baptized by John. After Jesus’ death, his followers thought that within their lifetimes he would return to establish the Kingdom. After his conversion, Paul was of the very same view. The Christians very soon, as early as I Thessalonians (c. 50 CE), had to start coping with the troublesome fact that the kingdom had not yet come and for that reason Matthew and Luke had to edit the works of Jesus placed on his lips by Mark. However, it is evident that Jesus had an eschatological message.

        

“One of the chief topics of the parables is the Kingdom of God or Kingdom of heaven. It is symbolized by the imperceptibly growing seed and ultimately by the harvest (or the catch of the fish). Throughout, the main lessons are typical of the teaching of Jesus: total and uncalculating trust in God combined with a wholehearted and devout commitment to paving the way of the Kingdom, together with repentance shown as the indispensable prerequisites for forgiveness. Other parables emphasize the necessity of mixing or not mixing old and new wisdom; constant vigilance and readiness for the imminent yet unpredictable hour of God’s coming. Further necessary virtues are tenacity in prayer, strenuous and joyful effort in pursuing one’s task, and courage empowering one to face up to risks.” (The Authentic Gospel of Jesus pp. 169-170)

 

Among the sayings directly related to the Kingdom of God, faith and trust once more plays the leading role. It supersedes blood ties and overrules neighborliness and friendship. This explains the lack of success of Jesus as a charismatic prophet among his relations and all his acquaintances in Nazareth, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house” (Mark 6:4). Moreover, Jesus was convinced that only those who approached the Kingdom like children, that is to say, with complete trust in a caring father, could gain admittance to it. Throughout his whole preaching ministry Jesus laid heavy emphasis on the virtue of faith and trust, and considered it to be an absolute precondition for any valid action leading to the kingdom of God. Negatively, he asserted the impossibility of achieving any efficacious act in religion without such these traits and this is multiply attested throughout Q, Thomas, and the canonical Gospels. For him, lack of faith or pusillanimity was the greatest obstacle to religious well-being and the main barrier in front of a divinely inspired action.

 

“The effective prayer may be considered as a sub-category of potent faith. In the view of Jesus prayer should be stimulated and activated by limitless trust if it is to produce the hoped-for result, even an outcome that in normal circumstances would seem impossible: ‘Whatever you ask in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours’ (Mark 11:24; Matt. 21:22).” (The Authentic Gospel of Jesus pp. 391)

 

The genuine teaching of Jesus contains nothing abstract, theoretical and speculative. He was not intrigued by the philosophical and ontological nature of the God and even less was he concerned with his own part in the great drama of the eschaton. He rather tried to convey to his audience, especially to the inner circle of his apostles, how to draw near to God, and respond to his appeal through concrete religious behaviors and action. The basic and all-encompassing vision of Jesus was centered on the somewhat vague reality of the divine Kingdom. He was convinced that his God-given messiahship was to persuade his Jewish contemporaries to strive whole-heartedly towards this Kingdom. Five major themes constitute Jesus’ message:

 

1. The Kingdom of God

2. The observance of the Torah in the final age

3. Eschatological piety

4. The prayers of Jesus

5. His view of God

 

The last thing I want to mention in this blog post is the influence of Paul (the apostle who became a Christian due to his vision on his way to Damascus (13 books of the New Testament were written by him with only seven of them being authentic)) over the New Testament. It is from Paul that Christianity developed the idea of vicarious atonement and the rejection of the Torah through the death of Jesus. However, was this the teachings of Jesus’ own disciples and the heads of the church, James, John, and Peter?

  

“As we will see, the original apostolic Christianity that came before Paul, and developed independently of him, by those who had known and spent time with Jesus, was in sharp contrast to Paul's version of the new faith. This lost Christianity held sway during Paul's lifetime, and only with the death of James in A.D. 62, followed by the brutal destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in A.D. 70, did it begin to lose its influence as the center of the Jesus movement. Ironically, it was the production and final editing of the New Testament itself, in the early second century A.D., supporting Paul's version of Christianity, that ensured first the marginalization, and subsequently the death of this original form of Christianity within Christian orthodoxy. By the fourth century A.D., the dominant Roman church classified surviving forms of this Jewish Christianity as heresy and Christians were forbidden under threat of penalties to follow any kind of Jewish observances. One of my theses in this book is that the form of Christianity that subsequently developed as a thriving religion in the late Roman Empire was heavily based upon the ecstatic and visionary experiences of Paul. Christianity, as we came to know it, is Paul and Paul is Christianity, The bulk of the New Testament is dominated by his theological vision. Its main elements are: 1) the forgiveness of sins through the blood of Christ, God's divine Son, based on his sacrificial death on the cross; 2) receiving the Holy Spirit and the gift of eternal life guaranteed by faith in Jesus’ resurrection from the dead; and 3) a glorified heavenly reign with Christ when he re- turns in the clouds of heaven. The mystical rites of baptism and the ‘Lord's Supper’ function as experiential verification of this understanding of ‘salvation.’ It is difficult for one to imagine a version of Christianity predating Paul with none of these seemingly essential elements. Yet that is precisely what our evidence indicates. The original apostles and followers of Jesus, led by James and assisted by Peter and John, continued to live as Jews, observing the Torah and worshipping in the Temple at Jerusalem, or in their local synagogues, while remembering and honoring Jesus as their martyred Teacher and Messiah. They neither worshipped nor divinized Jesus as the Son of God, or as a Dying-and-Rising Savior, who died for the sins of humankind. They practiced no ritual of baptism into Christ, nor did they celebrate a sacred meal equated with ‘eating the body and drinking the blood’ of Christ as a guarantee of eternal life. Their message was wholly focused around their expectations that the kingdom of God had drawn near, as proclaimed by John the Baptizer and Jesus, and that very soon God would intervene in human history to bring about his righteous rule of peace and justice among all nations. In the meantime both Jews and non-Jews were urged to repent of their sins, turn to God, and live righteously before him in expectation of his kingdom.” (Paul and Jesus pp. 24-25)

 

In his writings, Paul altered a crucial text, asserting that everyone would eventually acknowledge Jesus as the divine Lord, bringing glory to God the Father (Philippians 2:10-11). This bold declaration, equating a human being with God and deserving of worship, distinguished Paul’s version of Christianity from Judaism, essentially establishing a new religious perspective apart from mainstream Jewish beliefs. Paul's divergence did not stop there; he disparaged the Jewish people as “Israel according to the flesh” severed from the tree of Israel, abandoned by God, and decaying like discarded branches due to their rejection of Jesus as Lord and Christ. Instead, a new and authentic Israel emerged, defined by spiritual connection rather than lineage. Moreover, Paul asserted that the Torah of Moses was never meant to be permanent; it was delivered through angels and shockingly to the ears of many Jews, not directly from God. Its purpose was fulfilled in guiding both Jews and Gentiles toward Christ, rendering it obsolete in Paul's view. (1 Corinthians 8:4-6), (1 Thessalonians 1:9b-10), (Philippians 3:3), (Galatians 6:15), (Romans 10:4), (Galatians 3:23-25) It was no longer the religion of Jesus but a religion about Jesus. When investigating even further the influence of Paul on the Gospels as previously discussed,

 

“Most scholars are convinced that the author of the gospel of Luke, who also wrote the book of Acts, used Mark as his main source. He has some independent material, as well as the Q source (which I will explain below), but his core story of Jesus is taken from Mark. Accordingly, he edits Mark freely, based on his own emphases and agenda. Here, for example, when he relates this scene in Nazareth, based on Mark, he omits the names of the brothers and has the people ask, ‘Is not this Josephs son?’ (Luke 4:22). His silence has nothing to do with the idea that Mary had no other children. His clear intention is to make the brothers, and James in particular, virtually anonymous. He continues this practice throughout his two-volume work of Luke-Acts. When Mark describes Jesus’ death on the cross he notes that ‘Mary the mother of James and Joseph was present.’ Luke changes this to read ‘the women [unnamed] who had followed him from Galilee’ (Luke 23:49). When Jesus is buried, Mark again notes that ‘Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joseph’ were present at the tomb (Mark 15:47). Luke changes his account to read ‘the women [again unnamed] who had come with him from Galilee followed and saw the tomb’ (Luke 23:55). In most cases Luke followed Mark rather closely as a source, much more so than did Matthew, who constantly adds his own editorial revisions. But this is not the case when it comes to the mother and brothers of Jesus. Such bold editing could not be accidental; there is something very important going on here. Since this editing runs through both volumes of this work, Luke and Acts, it is clearly part of the author's central agenda to recast the history of the early movement so that James and the family of Jesus are muted and Paul emerges as the ultimate hero who proclaims the true gospel to the world.” (Paul and Jesus pp. 30)

 

There is an attempt to write the family of Jesus, especially James who was in charge of the church after Jesus (not Peter), out of Christianity. Furthermore, Paul spoke ill of the disciples who met Jesus when he was on earth. Paul spoke of the Jerusalem leadership sarcastically, referring to James, Peter, and John as the so-called pillars, and those reputed to be somebody, but adds, “what they are means nothing to me” (Galatians 2:6, 9). At the same time, he insisted that they gave him the right hand of fellowship and wished him well in his mission. It is possible that the leaders in Jerusalem had initially reached some sort of ‘live and let live’ agreement with Paul. His work, which was almost exclusively with non-Jews, would not interfere with their own preaching to Jews. However, it is possible that this agreement did not sit right with the Jerusalem church such that they had to send envoys to the churches that Paul established in the Gentile works in order to teach them what Jesus actually taught.

        

“The traveling preachers of circumcision apparently informed the Galatians that Paul was certainly a good fellow, but that he was not actually one of the ‘real’ apostles. The ‘pillars of the church’ in Jerusalem were men who had been Jesus' disciples during his lifetime and had continued nurturing the community after Jesus' death. Who could be closer to Jesus than Peter, John, and James, the very brother of the Lord? The traveling preachers insisted that they, rather than Paul, were the true representatives of the Jerusalem leadership, and what they were offering was a legitimate supplement to Paul's gospel, which had gotten the Galatians started, but not fully ‘up to speed.’ Paul perhaps was an apostle of sorts, but a secondary one who had received even his gospel from the Jerusalem ‘pillars.’ Once Paul gets wind of all this, he goes ballistic…Paul insists that he got his gospel not from Peter, John, James, or anyone else, but directly from a revelation from Christ.” (New Testament History and Literature pp 232-233)

 

The closest thing that is in the New Testament to the teachings of James is the Epistle of James. Although it is certainly not authored by the brother of Jesus, it is written in the light of his teachings.

        

“In fact, James directly disputed Paul's teaching of ‘salvation by faith’ without deeds of righteousness. James speaks positively of the enduring validity of the Jewish Torah, or Law of Moses, and insists that all its commandments are to be observed: (James 2:14, 17), (James 1:25), (James 2:10). What is particularly notable about the letter of James is that the ethical content of its teaching is directly parallel to the teachings of Jesus that we know from the Q source. The Q source is the earliest collection of the teachings and sayings of Jesus, which scholars date to around the year 50 A.D. It has not survived as an intact document but both Matthew and Luke use it extensively. By comparing Matthew and Luke and extracting the material they use in common but do not derive from their main source, which is Mark, we are able to come to a reasonable construction of this lost ‘gospel of Q' It consists of about 235 verses that are mostly but not entirely the ‘sayings’ of Jesus. The Q source takes us back to the original teachings of Jesus minus much of the theological frame work that the gospels subsequently added. Perhaps the most striking characteristic of the Q source in terms of reconstructing Christian origins is that it has nothing of Paul's theology, particularly his Christology or view of Christ. The most familiar parts of Q to most Bible readers are in Matthew's ‘Sermon on the Mount'’(Matthew 5-7) and Luke’s ‘Sermon on the Plain’ (Luke 6). If one takes the letter of James, short as it is, there are no fewer than thirty direct references, echoes, and allusions to the teachings of Jesus found in the Q source! (Paul and Jesus pp. 40-41)

 

      To conclude, our exploration into the historical Jesus reveals complex beliefs and influences that have shaped his portrayal in the Gospels. By dissecting the origins, dating, and varied goals of the Gospels, we have deciphered the intricate layers of their narratives. Through comparison, contradictions and commonalities among the Gospels emerged, shedding light on the true nature of these books as religious rather than historical biographies. The introduction of the Q source added depth to our understanding, further highlighting the shared traditions and unique divergences. The contrast between the synoptic Gospels and John furthers the nuanced nature of historical accounts thus proving the presence of theological embellishments. Paul’s significant influence on the Gospel narratives, coupled with the marginalization of figures like James, exemplifies the dynamic interplay of early Christian voices. The debate surrounding the applicability of the Torah and the universal reach of Jesus’ teachings further deepened our inquiry, emphasizing the evolving nature of the Gospels’ audiences. Ultimately, our analysis supports the portrayal of Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet, heralding the imminent arrival of the Kingdom of God. His emphasis on righteousness, kindness, and adherence to the Torah underscored his ethical teachings, while his mission primarily targeted the Jewish community. Through this comprehensive examination in this blog, we have gained valuable insights into the historical Jesus, unraveling the multifaceted layers of his life and teachings in the context of his time.

 

Works Cited:

 

1. Ehrman, Bart D. How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee. HarperOne, 2015.

2. Ehrman, Bart D. The New Testament a Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. Oxford University Press, 2020.

3. Holy Bible: NRSV, New Revised Standard Version. Harper Bibles, 2007.

4. Martin, Dale B. New Testament History and Literature. Yale University Press, 2012.

5. Sanders, E. P. The Historical Figure of Jesus. Penguin Books, 1996.

6. Tabor, James D. Paul and Jesus: How The Apostle Transformed Christianity. Simon & Schuster, 2013.

7. Vermès, Géza. The Authentic Gospel of Jesus. Penguin Books, 2004.