Friday, September 08, 2006

the Gospels

there are a lot of questions people have re: the gospels (the first 4 books of the New Testament that focus on the life and work of Jesus directly)

I was talking to a guy a few weeks ago who had some of these concerns floating around in his mind.

Namely it's what scholars call the "synoptic problem"... that the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke say slightly different things and occasionally seem to contradict each other. If that were true, that would be a cause of concern, but this issue has been drastically blown out of proportion and misunderstood.

Here's what i'd like to submit... that the differences in the Gospels are stylistic not factual.

Let me tell you what i mean by that. I've often heard the explanation given that the 4 Gospels and the men who were used by God to write them are like 4 eyewitnesses of an incident. If you called the 4 people into a witness room and asked them to give a deposition, all 4 would have slightly different things they'd mention, remember, or have thought important. For the most part they would all agree on the principal parts of the account, but there would be variations from their perspectives.

I DON'T DISAGREE with that analogy, but i think it ignores an important aspect that i've already mentioned... that each Gospel writer has a different STYLISTIC concern.

Only one Gospel writer, Luke, is trying to write an "eyewitness" kind of account of all the facts. How do we know? because he tells us so but to imply that Matthew, Mark (and John) might be somehow trying to do the same thing is incorrect. Their concerns are different (the reason i put john in brackets is because most people realize this about John's gospel, that his concern and style make it a little different. but for some reason the other writers aren't afforded the same courtesy)

Instead here's what i propose as another hopelessly flawed (yet possibly helpful) analogy...Think about it this way. 4 men are big fans of former president JFK. All 4 had contact with him, watched his life and work unfold. And all 4 want to write about him.

One of them decides to write a full biography arranging facts of his life, schooling, family, etc. and does so, trying to give a complete historical picture of who JFK was.

But one of the authors is really interested in JFK as a man of faith and so writes his book focusing on his faith journey and how it shaped him and influenced his work in office.

another author is taken with the whole Kennedy family and writes his book looking at JFK as the pinnacle of the family's influence, the Kennedy of Kennedys.

the last author sees JFK as the greatest president who ever lived. And so his book is written with a mind to prove that belief.

Now would you be surprised to read through these 4 books and to find them different in content (not in accuracy)? or course not!

This, IMHO, is much closer to what we have in the 4 Gospels. We do NOT have four men all trying to give sworn depositions, we've got 1 guy doing that (luke) and the others are

- writing about Jesus as the promised Jewish Messiah but with a special eye towards how he was with the outcasts of society (matthew, the tax collector's, gospel)

- writing a heart-pumping thriller of a narrative that climaxes at the cross and leaves the resolution (the resurrection) a little up in the air to sympathize with and challenge all of us who have not seen him in Risen, bodily form (Mark, the young man who followed jesus from boyhood's, Gospel)

- writing about Jesus as a worker of miracles and signs who should be believed and trusted as the one through whom Life comes (John, "the disciple whom Jesus loved"'s, Gospel)

They aren't contradicting each other on the facts of the case, but their concerns, thematically and literarily drive them to write differently from one another.

There is more to be said, i hope i've at least given you something to think about the next time you read a Gospel (the Good News) of Jesus Christ... and for further study find a good Study Bible and read those introductions that come beforehand, i know i've found them helpful!

11 Comments:

At 9/14/2006 01:12:00 PM , Blogger Dion said...

since no one else is commenting, i thought i would :)

I guess i wanted to clarify something. My explanation here is over-simplistic. It does not adequately explain-away every issue people have raised with the Gospels.

But i believe it to be helpful starting point for people to being to see the Gospels differently. There. You may continue with the silence now :)

 
At 9/18/2006 02:55:00 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

i think your explanation is quite good... and needed. i'm sure the seeming "contradictions" are a thing that many Christians silently wonder about, but dismiss, for fear of being "out of faith".

 
At 9/30/2006 04:37:00 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks for explaining
I think a lot of people should read this, sometimes i try to explain this point to lot of people but i could not or maybe they are close to know the truth.
you have a great blog..

 
At 9/30/2006 08:32:00 AM , Blogger Dion said...

thanks to both of you! :)

 
At 5/25/2007 04:21:00 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think the explanation is good in explaining why the 4 versions of the good news differ in their stylistic approach, but lacking in explaining differences in fact. When you say,
"Now would you be surprised to read through these 4 books and to find them different in content (not in accuracy)? or course not!"

---
I would expect be upset to read that the person upon whom the book was written used differing quotes, from different people.

---Content, you explain well, but that isn't the issue. The issue is with regards to accuracy. I use the fig tree story as an example. In two of the gospels, Jesus himself if quoted as saying different things. It seems to me that in your explanation you are arguing that the deciples presented differences in content but not accuracy. My question then is this; Did the deciples intentionally alter the words of Christ, seemingly out of artistic licence, or did one of them, or both, not accurately remember what he said?

I believe the importance of these discussions lie not in faith but in dogma.

Peace and Love through Christ.
TP.

 
At 5/25/2007 08:48:00 PM , Blogger Dion said...

TP-
you have to help me out here. Are you referring to Jesus cursing the fig tree in Mark 11 and Matt 21?

I don't notice a substantive difference is what is noted there in Jesus' words. Perhaps you could be more specific about what you find troubling there, it would help me know how to respond.

Also i'm not sure what you meant by your faith and dogma quote, i understand the word dogma to refer to the chief tenents of the faith.

thanks for posting, hope to hear from you again.

 
At 9/08/2007 05:09:00 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

i think your blog explains it very well . but for me im trying to understand the commission at the end of the gospels it seems two different places (mountain in galilee and jeruselm). im not denying god my life reflects that of beliver as i am one but i like to understand what i am taught by my pastor on sunday and if i dont i like to research till i find the anwser, whether divine revelation from god or just discussing with a brother. your thoughts please.thank you in advance.

 
At 9/10/2007 10:18:00 AM , Blogger Dion said...

Great question!

I think the confusion could come from assumptions that are made that aren't necessarily supported by the text.

Each Gospel writer terminates his Gospel at a different end point (and most of them also begin at a different point too)

Matthew records the "Great Commission" as Jesus' final words and those words are given in Galilee on a mountain. This encounter in Galilee appears to be very close to the resurrection itself (read the resurrection announcement and the surrounding chronology). Matthew's gospel ends there with these words of Jesus in Galilee. There is no record of the ascension here The ascension doesn't appear to be Matthew's concern. The commission is.

Luke's Gospel finishes with the Ascension event. Luke is the only one to record it (in both Luke and the beginning of Acts). In the Ascension encounter there is no "Great Commission" rather, Jesus tells the disciples to be "witnesses." But ultimately, the more important thing for Luke is the promise of the Holy Spirit. In Luke's account after Jesus makes this promise, then he is taken up near the vicinity of Bethany.

Why shouldn't we assume that these authors were ending their gospels focusing on two different events?

It wouldn't be unreasonable. Mark 's earliest manuscripts end with only the word of resurrection and no actual "Jesus sightings." John ends with the reinstating of Peter on the beach. IMO, this only highlights the original point, that each writer has a different CONCERN in writing, therefore they all conclude at different points in the actual timeline of events. After all, we know from Luke (in Acts 1:3) that Jesus appeared to the disciples at various times and places over a 40 day period. That leaves plenty of times for all these different encounters. Does that help? Thanks again for a fantastic question!

 
At 9/11/2007 11:58:00 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

yes that does help and thankyou again for your comment . I have another question if i may? when jesus breathed on the disciples in john20:22 and said recive the holy spirit, whats the diffrence in that and the filling of the holy spirit on the day of pentecost? now i know that jesus told them to stay in jeruselem till they were empowered by the holy spirit, but whats the difference in

1.receive the holy spirit jn20:22

2.baptized with the holy spirit
acts1:5
3.holy spirit comes on you acts1:8

#2 and #3 i know are speaking of the same event and are prophetic to the day of pentecost but how is it different then receiving the holy spirit?
and then how do both events pertain and work together with 1cor12:13?
in that it says we are ALL BAPTIZED by one spirit? because if we are ALL baptized by one spirit then wouldnt all belivers have the baptisim of the holy spirit?(acts1:5) sorry my question is so long but i have yet to find an answer for these questions, and ive heard several commentaries on the baptism of the holy spirit and none seem to explain it. again im not challenging i looking for understanding. thank you again in advance and god bless.

 
At 9/17/2007 06:14:00 AM , Blogger Dion said...

great question on the Holy Spirit. Sorry that it took a few days to get back with you. We know from 1 Cor 12 that the same Spirit works in many ways imparting many different gifts. From the book of Acts we also see cases where believing people haven't received a "baptism" in the Holy Spirit. These events could be peculiar to Acts alone but let's remember what "baptism" means. It means to be washed. Might being "washed" in the Spirit be a little different than "receiving" the Spirit?

Certainly it seems the Spirit of God was active before Pentecost helping the disciples believe and understand that Jesus was the fulfillment of the scriptures (lk 24:30-32).

But in John's gospel, look at the focus of the Spirit's coming there. It's not on gifts or dramatic faith, the focus is on the ability to forgive sins. Here it seems that Jesus is imparting on his followers (assembled collectively) His Holy Spirit so that they can continue the reconciling ministry of forgiving people's sins.

In Luke's account (acts) we see a different kind of coming for the Holy Spirit. It is an outpouring or even a bathing in the Spirit for the purpose of imparting power to be witnesses to the ends of the earth. While John is describing the gift of the Spirit that gives the disciples the "right" or "permission" to forgive sins. Luke is describing a coming of the Spirit that gives power or "fuel" for the mission to the ends of the earth.

Why can't both "comings" be true and accurate, describing the giving of the Spirit on different occasions for different purposes?

For the modern believer, that would leave us asking for the Spirit to bless our lives in a multiplicity of ways so that we can not only believe in God but also so that we can serve God well in this world. Let me know if this doesn't help.

 
At 9/17/2007 07:11:00 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

thankyou for your reply.
so is the recieving of the holy spirit in john happening in modern times ,meaning that when we become belivers and accept christ as our lord and savior we then have the indwelling power of the holy spirit.
and baptism of the spirit something different? or is the passage in john some thing different?
My belief was always that when we came to the saving grace and knoledge of jesus and accepted him as lord we were baptized by the holy spirit into the body of christ
as it says in 1cor 12:13 that ALL were baptized and not just some and some more at another time. But then i asked my pastor about it and he said that the indwelling of the spirit and the baptism of the spirit were different occasions.
the first happening when we become saved and the latter when we are called for ministry.
but what if someone is not called into ministry would they not have this baptism?
and if they dont have this baptism then according to 1cor12:13 they arent part of the body of christ.

i guess im still a little confused about the two onsets of the spirit and when they happen and if they are two different occassions.
if you have any more knoledge on this subject it would be greatly
appreciated. thank you

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home