Since the Gospels claim to report what happened in the public ministry of Jesus, his suffering and death on the cross, resurrection from the dead and ascension to his Father in Heaven, how come there are certain differences in the narratives of the 4 Gospels? The first difference is in the nature of the first 3 Gospels and that of John where the former seem to have similar views, whereas the latter has a new way of looking at the same things.The first 3 Gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke are known as the synoptic Gospels because of the similarity of their views about Jesus Christ. However, there are certain differences even among them like the addition of Genealogy of Jesus in Matthew and Luke where again they do no not agree in every detail. These differences must be explained by the diverse perspectives adopted by the respective authors of the Gospels in order to effectively communicate the same message to the particular audiences they were faced with. While the synoptic Gospels were to account for the Jewish background of the communities to whom they were addressed, John's Gospel had to deal with the Greek world where at the time the philosophy known as Gnosticism was rampant. John starts with the concept of the 'Logos' as the Word of God and the whole Gospel follows a pattern of spiritual outlook.
In other words, each Gospel had its own theology packaged into the historical events and sayings reported by each. Besides, each Evangelist had his own distinctive style of writing and use of language that could lead to perception of differences even when they were dealing with one and the same thing. Many of the differences in the passion narratives of the synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John can be understood from this angle. Some differences are a result of adaptation of the message to suit the background of the hearers who otherwise would have been totally at a loss to make sense of the good news. An example would be the genealogy in Matthew and Luke where the former starts with Abraham the Patriarch of the Jews, while the latter ends with Adam the first parent of humanity. While Mark starts his Gospel with the public ministry of Jesus, Matthew and Luke go back to his infancy and birth. John goes beyond to the pre-existence of the Word from eternity becoming flesh in the person of Jesus.How should we understand these variations about the same event and claim it to be historical in the sense that it really happened? The New Testament scholar Rudolf Bultmann found an easy way out of the impasse by arguing that the myths of the early Church created most of the Gospel accounts of Jesus' life. The answer to the problem of mythology should be clear when we treat the question of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead where it is more vehemently argued.
Both Matthew and Luke report about the birth and infancy of Jesus though in different surroundings and in language peculiar to each Evangelist's background. It should be kept in mind that although the Gospels are known under the names of the four Evangelists, they are products of the communities they were members of rather than their own personal views. Thus it is not necessary to see them as direct authors of the Gospels since they could be written by others who used their names for credibility as was the custom in olden days. However, as products of the believing communities, there is no problem with authenticity as far as the Gospels are concerned. Matthew being a Jewish disciple wrote from within the Jewish Christian community for the Jewish Christians of Palestine. The very beginning of Matthew's Gospel with the genealogy of Jesus Christ points towards his interest in the Jews and their concerns by starting with Abraham instead of Adam. Luke, although born from gentile parents in Antioch, was converted to the christian belief and wrote mainly for the Gentiles without neglecting the Jewish roots of this belief. Thus we have references to the Jerusalem Temple both at the beginning and end of the Gospel. However, the special character of Luke's Gospel consists in the fact that the message of salvation is open to all with added emphasis on the acceptability of the poor and the marginalized including sinners. Jesus' foray into the Galilee of the Gentiles at the beginning of his public ministry and his injunction to the disciples at the end to call all peoples of all nations to repentance for the forgiveness of sins indicate the character of the Gospel. Let us also note that the genealogy in Luke ends with Adam, the son of God. With this background of the two Gospels, we shall try to understand the differences between them a little more in the next posts.
In other words, each Gospel had its own theology packaged into the historical events and sayings reported by each. Besides, each Evangelist had his own distinctive style of writing and use of language that could lead to perception of differences even when they were dealing with one and the same thing. Many of the differences in the passion narratives of the synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John can be understood from this angle. Some differences are a result of adaptation of the message to suit the background of the hearers who otherwise would have been totally at a loss to make sense of the good news. An example would be the genealogy in Matthew and Luke where the former starts with Abraham the Patriarch of the Jews, while the latter ends with Adam the first parent of humanity. While Mark starts his Gospel with the public ministry of Jesus, Matthew and Luke go back to his infancy and birth. John goes beyond to the pre-existence of the Word from eternity becoming flesh in the person of Jesus.How should we understand these variations about the same event and claim it to be historical in the sense that it really happened? The New Testament scholar Rudolf Bultmann found an easy way out of the impasse by arguing that the myths of the early Church created most of the Gospel accounts of Jesus' life. The answer to the problem of mythology should be clear when we treat the question of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead where it is more vehemently argued.
Both Matthew and Luke report about the birth and infancy of Jesus though in different surroundings and in language peculiar to each Evangelist's background. It should be kept in mind that although the Gospels are known under the names of the four Evangelists, they are products of the communities they were members of rather than their own personal views. Thus it is not necessary to see them as direct authors of the Gospels since they could be written by others who used their names for credibility as was the custom in olden days. However, as products of the believing communities, there is no problem with authenticity as far as the Gospels are concerned. Matthew being a Jewish disciple wrote from within the Jewish Christian community for the Jewish Christians of Palestine. The very beginning of Matthew's Gospel with the genealogy of Jesus Christ points towards his interest in the Jews and their concerns by starting with Abraham instead of Adam. Luke, although born from gentile parents in Antioch, was converted to the christian belief and wrote mainly for the Gentiles without neglecting the Jewish roots of this belief. Thus we have references to the Jerusalem Temple both at the beginning and end of the Gospel. However, the special character of Luke's Gospel consists in the fact that the message of salvation is open to all with added emphasis on the acceptability of the poor and the marginalized including sinners. Jesus' foray into the Galilee of the Gentiles at the beginning of his public ministry and his injunction to the disciples at the end to call all peoples of all nations to repentance for the forgiveness of sins indicate the character of the Gospel. Let us also note that the genealogy in Luke ends with Adam, the son of God. With this background of the two Gospels, we shall try to understand the differences between them a little more in the next posts.
No comments:
Post a Comment