Remove ads
Gospel originally meant the Christian message ("the gospel"), but in the 2nd century it came to be used also for the books in which the message was reported.[1] In this sense a gospel can be defined as a loose-knit, episodic narrative of the words and deeds of Jesus, culminating in his trial and death and concluding with various reports of his post-resurrection appearances.[2]
_-_Gospel_of_Matthew's_title,_euangelion_kata_Maththaion.jpg)
The gospels are a kind of bios, or ancient biography,[3] meant to convince people that Jesus was a charismatic miracle-working holy man, providing examples for readers to emulate.[4][5][6] As such, they present the Christian message of the second half of the first century AD,[7] and modern biblical scholars are cautious of relying on the gospels uncritically as historical documents, though according to E. P. Sanders "we have a good idea of [...] his public career."[note 1][8][9][10][note 2] Critical study on the Historical Jesus has largely failed to distinguish the original ideas of Jesus from those of the later Christian authors,[11][12] and the focus of research has shifted to Jesus as remembered by his followers,[13][14][note 3][note 4] and understanding the Gospels themselves.[15]
The canonical gospels are the four which appear in the New Testament of the Bible. They were probably written between AD 66 and 110, which puts their composition likely within the lifetimes of various eyewitnesses, including Jesus's own family. [16][17][18][19][20] Most scholars hold that all four were anonymous (with the modern names of the "Four Evangelists" added in the 2nd century), almost certainly none were by eyewitnesses, and all are the end-products of long oral and written transmission (which did involve eyewitnesses).[21][22] According to the majority of scholars, Mark was the first to be written, using a variety of sources,[23][24] followed by Matthew and Luke, which both independently used Mark for their narrative of Jesus's career, supplementing it with a collection of sayings called "the Q source", and additional material unique to each.[25] There have been different views on the transmission of material that lead to the Synoptic Gospels, with various scholars arguing memory and orality reliably preserved traditions that ultimately go back to the Historical Jesus.[26][27][28][29] Other scholars have been more skeptical and see more changes in the traditions prior to the written Gospels.[30][31] There is near-consensus that John had its origins as the hypothetical Signs Gospel thought to have been circulated within a Johannine community.[32] In modern scholarship, the Synoptic Gospels are the primary sources for reconstructing Christ's ministry while John is used less since it differs from the synoptics.[9][note 5] However, according to the manuscript evidence and citation frequency by the early Church Fathers, Matthew and John were the most popular gospels while Luke and Mark were less popular in the early centuries of the church.[33]
Many non-canonical gospels were also written, all later than the four canonical gospels, and like them advocating the particular theological views of their various authors.[34][35] Important examples include the gospels of Thomas, Peter, Judas, and Mary; infancy gospels such as that of James (the first to introduce the perpetual virginity of Mary); and gospel harmonies such as the Diatessaron.
Remove ads
Gospel is the Old English translation of the Hellenistic Greek term εὐαγγέλιον, meaning "good news";[36] this may be seen from analysis of ευαγγέλιον (εὖ "good" + ἄγγελος "messenger" + -ιον diminutive suffix). The Greek term was Latinized as evangelium in the Vulgate, and translated into Latin as bona annuntiatio. In Old English, it was translated as gōdspel (gōd "good" + spel "news"). The Old English term was retained as gospel in Middle English Bible translations and hence remains in use also in Modern English.
Remove ads
| Canonical Gospels | |
|---|---|
 The first page of the Gospel of Mark in Armenian, by Sargis Pitsak, 14th century | |
| Information | |
| Religion | Christianity |
| Language | Koine Greek |
| Period | Apostolic Age |
| Chapters | 89 |
| Verses | 3,779 |
Contents
The four canonical gospels share the same basic outline of the life of Jesus: he begins his public ministry in conjunction with that of John the Baptist, calls disciples, teaches and heals and confronts the Pharisees, dies on the cross and is raised from the dead.[37] Each has its own distinctive understanding of him and his divine role[35][38] and scholars recognize that the differences of detail among the gospels are irreconcilable, and any attempt to harmonize them would only disrupt their distinct theological messages.[39]
Matthew, Mark, and Luke are termed the synoptic gospels because they present very similar accounts of the life of Jesus.[40] Mark begins with the baptism of the adult Jesus and the heavenly declaration that he is the son of God; he gathers followers and begins his ministry, and tells his disciples that he must die in Jerusalem but that he will rise; in Jerusalem, he is at first acclaimed but then rejected, betrayed, and crucified, and when the women who have followed him come to his tomb, they find it empty.[41] Mark never calls Jesus "God" or claims that he existed prior to his earthly life, apparently believes that he had a normal human parentage and birth, and makes no attempt to trace his ancestry back to King David or Adam;[42][43] it originally ended at Mark 16:8 and had no post-resurrection appearances, although Mark 16:7, in which the young man discovered in the tomb instructs the women to tell "the disciples and Peter" that Jesus will see them again in Galilee, hints that the author knew of the tradition.[44]
The authors of Matthew and Luke added infancy and resurrection narratives to the story they found in Mark, although the two differ markedly.[45] Each also makes subtle theological changes to Mark: the Markan miracle stories, for example, confirm Jesus' status as an emissary of God (which was Mark's understanding of the Messiah), but in Matthew they demonstrate his divinity,[46] and the "young man" who appears at Jesus' tomb in Mark becomes a radiant angel in Matthew.[47][48] Luke, while following Mark's plot more faithfully than Matthew, has expanded on the source, corrected Mark's grammar and syntax, and eliminated some passages entirely, notably most of chapters 6 and 7.[49]
John, the most overtly theological, is the first to make Christological judgements outside the context of the narrative of Jesus's life.[35] He presents a significantly different picture of Jesus's career,[40] omitting any mention of his ancestry, birth and childhood, his baptism, temptation and transfiguration;[40] his chronology and arrangement of incidents is also distinctly different, clearly describing the passage of three years in Jesus's ministry in contrast to the single year of the synoptics, placing the cleansing of the Temple at the beginning rather than at the end, and the Last Supper on the day before Passover instead of being a Passover meal.[50] According to Delbert Burkett, the Gospel of John is the only gospel to call Jesus God, though other scholars like Larry Hurtado and Michael Barber view a possible divine Christology in the Synoptics.[51][52][53] In contrast to Mark, where Jesus hides his identity as messiah, in John he openly proclaims it.[54]
Composition
Like the rest of the New Testament, the four gospels were written in Greek.[56] The Gospel of Mark probably dates from c. AD 66–70,[18] Matthew and Luke around AD 85–90,[19] and John AD 90–110.[20], which puts their composition likely within the lifetimes of various eyewitnesses, including Jesus's own family. [57][58] Despite the traditional ascriptions, most scholars hold that all four are anonymous[note 6] and most scholars agree that none were written by eyewitnesses to the Historical Jesus, though most scholars view the author of Luke-Acts as an eyewitness to Paul.[60][61][62] All are the end-products of long oral and written transmission (which did involve eyewitnesses).[21][63] A few scholars defend the traditional ascriptions or attributions, but for a variety of reasons, the majority of scholars have abandoned this view or hold it only tenuously.[64][59]
In the immediate aftermath of Jesus' death, his followers expected him to return at any moment, certainly within their own lifetimes, and in consequence there was little motivation to write anything down for future generations, but as eyewitnesses began to die, and as the missionary needs of the church grew, there was an increasing demand and need for written versions of the founder's life and teachings.[65] The stages of this process can be summarized as follows:[66]
- Oral traditions – stories and sayings passed on largely as separate self-contained units, not in any order;
- Written collections of miracle stories, parables, sayings, etc., with oral tradition continuing alongside these;
- Written proto-gospels preceding and serving as sources for the gospels – the dedicatory preface of Luke, for example, testifies to the existence of previous accounts of the life of Jesus.[67]
- Gospels formed by combining proto-gospels, written collections, and still-current oral tradition.
Mark is generally agreed to be the first gospel;[23] it uses a variety of sources, including conflict stories (Mark 2:1–3:6), apocalyptic discourse (4:1–35), and collections of sayings, although not the sayings gospel known as the Gospel of Thomas, and probably not the hypothesized Q source used by Matthew and Luke.[24] The authors of Matthew and Luke, acting independently, used Mark for their narrative of Jesus' career, supplementing it with the hypothesized collection of sayings called the Q source and additional material unique to each called the M source (Matthew) and the L source (Luke).[25][note 7] Mark, Matthew, and Luke are called the synoptic gospels because of their close similarities of content, arrangement, and language.[68] Alan Kirk praises Matthew in particular for his "scribal memory competence" and "his high esteem for and careful handling of both Mark and Q", which makes claims the latter two works are significantly theologically or historically different dubious. [69][70] The authors and editors of John may have known the synoptics, but did not use them in the way that Matthew and Luke used Mark.[71] There is a near-consensus that this gospel had its origins as a "signs" source (or gospel) that circulated within the Johannine community (which produced John and the three epistles associated with the name) and later expanded with a Passion narrative as well as a series of discourses.[32][note 8]
All four also use the Jewish scriptures, by quoting or referencing passages, interpreting texts, or alluding to or echoing biblical themes.[73] Such use can be extensive: Mark's description of the Parousia (second coming) is made up almost entirely of quotations from scripture.[74] Matthew is full of quotations and allusions,[75] and although John uses scripture in a far less explicit manner, its influence is still pervasive.[76] Their source was the Greek version of the scriptures, called the Septuagint; they do not seem familiar with the original Hebrew.[77]
Genre and historical reliability
The consensus among modern scholars is that the gospels are a subset of the ancient genre of bios, or ancient biography.[3] Ancient biographies were concerned with providing examples for readers to emulate while preserving and promoting the subject's reputation and memory; the gospels were never simply biographical, they were propaganda and kerygma (preaching),[5] meant to convince people that Jesus was a charismatic miracle-working holy man.[4][6] As such, they present the Christian message of the second half of the first century AD,[7] and modern biblical scholars are cautious of relying on the gospels uncritically as historical documents,[8][9][10][note 2][note 9] though they provide a good idea of the public career of Jesus.[78][note 1]
The majority view among critical scholars is that the authors of Matthew and Luke based their narratives on Mark's gospel, editing him to suit their own ends, and the contradictions and discrepancies among these three versions and John make it impossible to accept both traditions as equally reliable with regard to the historical Jesus.[79] In addition, the gospels read today have been edited and corrupted over time, leading Origen to complain in the 3rd century that "the differences among manuscripts have become great [...] [because copyists] either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they make additions or deletions as they please."[80] Most of these are insignificant, but some are significant,[81] an example being Matthew 1:18, altered to imply the pre-existence of Jesus.[82] For these reasons, modern scholars are cautious of relying on the gospels uncritically, and critical study can attempt to distinguish the original ideas of Jesus from those of later authors.[83]
Scholars usually agree that John is not without historical value: certain of its sayings are as old or older than their synoptic counterparts, and its representation of the topography around Jerusalem is often superior to that of the synoptics. Its testimony that Jesus was executed before, rather than on, Passover, might well be more accurate, and its presentation of Jesus in the garden and the prior meeting held by the Jewish authorities are possibly more historically plausible than their synoptic parallels.[84] Nevertheless, it is highly unlikely that the author had direct knowledge of events, or that his mentions of the Beloved Disciple as his source should be taken as a guarantee of his reliability,[85] and the Synoptic Gospels are the primary sources for Christ's ministry.[9][note 5]
Assessments of the reliability of the Gospels involve not just the texts but studying the long oral and written transmission behind them using methods like memory studies and form criticism, with different scholars coming to different conclusions. James D.G. Dunn believed that
the earliest tradents within the Christian churches [were] preservers more than innovators [...] seeking to transmit, retell, explain, interpret, elaborate, but not create de novo [...] Through the main body of the Synoptic tradition [...] we have in most cases direct access to the teaching and ministry of Jesus as it was remembered from the beginning of the transmission process [...] and so fairly direct access to the ministry and teaching of Jesus through the eyes and ears of those who went about with him.[13]
Anthony Le Donne, a leading memory researcher in Jesus studies, elaborated on Dunn's thesis, basing "his historiography squarely on Dunn’s thesis that the historical Jesus is the memory of Jesus recalled by the earliest disciples."[86] According to Le Donne as explained by his reviewer, Benjamin Simpson, memories are fractured, and not exact recalls of the past. Le Donne further argues that the remembrance of events is facilitated by relating it to a common story, or "type." This means the Jesus-tradition is not a theological invention of the early Church, but rather a tradition shaped and refracted through such memory "type." Le Donne too supports a conservative view on typology compared to some other scholars, transmissions involving eyewitnesses, and ultimately a stable tradition resulting in little invention in the Gospels.[86] Le Donne expressed himself thusly vis-a-vis more skeptical scholars, "He (Dale Allison) does not read the gospels as fiction, but even if these early stories derive from memory, memory can be frail and often misleading. While I do not share Allison's point of departure (i.e. I am more optimistic), I am compelled by the method that came from it."[87]
Dale Allison emphasizes the weakness of human memory, referring to its 'many sins' and how it frequently misguides people. He expresses skepticism at other scholars' endeavors to identify authentic sayings of Jesus. Instead of isolating and authenticating individual pericopae, Allison advocates for a methodology focused on identifying patterns and finding what he calls 'recurrent attestation'. Allison argues that the general impressions left by the Gospels should be trusted, though he is more skeptical on the details; if they are broadly unreliable, then our sources almost certainly cannot have preserved any of the particulars. Opposing preceding approaches where the Gospels are historically questionable and must be rigorously sifted through by competent scholars for nuggets of information, Allison argues that the Gospels are generally accurate and often 'got Jesus right'. Dale Allison finds apocalypticism to be recurrently attested, among various other themes. [88] Reviewing his work, Rafael Rodriguez largely agrees with Allison's methodology and conclusions while arguing that Allison's discussion on memory is too one-sided, noting that memory "is nevertheless sufficiently stable to authentically bring the past to bear on the present" and that people are beholden to memory's successes in everyday life. [89]
Craig Keener, drawing on the works of previous studies by Dunn, Alan Kirk, Kenneth Bailey, and Robert McIver, among many others, utilizes memory theory and oral tradition to argue that the Gospels are in many ways historically accurate. [90] His work has been endorsed by Markus Bockmuehl, James Charlesworth, and David Aune, among others. [91] According to Bruce Chilton and Craig Evans, "...the Judaism of the period treated such traditions very carefully, and the New Testament writers in numerous passages applied to apostolic traditions the same technical terminology found elsewhere in Judaism [...] In this way they both identified their traditions as 'holy word' and showed their concern for a careful and ordered transmission of it."[92] NT Wright also argued for a stable oral tradition, stating "Communities that live in an oral culture tend to be story-telling communities [...] Such stories [...] acquire a fairly fixed form, down to precise phraseology [...] they retain that form, and phraseology, as long as they are told [...] The storyteller in such a culture has no license to invent or adapt at will. The less important the story, the more the entire community, in a process that is informal but very effective, will keep a close watch on the precise form and wording with which the story is told.[93]
Other scholars are less sanguine about oral tradition, and Valantasis, Bleyle, and Hough argue that the early traditions were fluid and subject to alteration, sometimes transmitted by those who had known Jesus personally, but more often by wandering prophets and teachers like the Apostle Paul, who did not know him personally.[94] Ehrman explains how the tradition developed as it was transmitted:
You are probably familiar with the old birthday party game "telephone." A group of kids sits in a circle, the first tells a brief story to the one sitting next to her, who tells it to the next, and to the next, and so on, until it comes back full circle to the one who started it. Invariably, the story has changed so much in the process of retelling that everyone gets a good laugh. Imagine this same activity taking place, not in a solitary living room with ten kids on one afternoon, but over the expanse of the Roman Empire (some 2,500 miles across), with thousands of participants—from different backgrounds, with different concerns, and in different contexts—some of whom have to translate the stories into different languages.[95]
While multiple quests have been undertaken to reconstruct the historical Jesus, since the late 1990s concerns have been growing about the possibility to reconstruct a historical Jesus from the Gospel-texts.[11] According to Dunn, "What we actually have in the earliest retellings of what is now the Synoptic tradition...are the memories of the first disciples-not Jesus himself, but the remembered Jesus. The idea that we can get back to an objective historical reality, which we can wholly separate and disentangle from the disciples' memories...is simply unrealistic."[96][14][note 4] According to Chris Keith, a historical Jesus is "ultimately unattainable, but can be hypothesized on the basis of the interpretations of the early Christians, and as part of a larger process of accounting for how and why early Christians came to view Jesus in the ways that they did." According to Keith, "these two models are methodologically and epistemologically incompatible," calling into question the methods and aim of the first model.[11] Keith argues that criticism of the criteria of authenticity does not mean scholars cannot research the Historical Jesus, but rather that scholarship should seek to understand the Gospels rather than trying to sift through them for nuggets of history.[15] Regardless of the methodological challenges historical Jesus studies have flowered in recent years; Dale Allison laments, "The publication of academic books about the historical Jesus continues apace, so much so that no one can any longer keep up; we are all overwhelmed."[97]
Textual history and canonisation
The oldest gospel text known is 𝔓52, a fragment of John dating from the first half of the 2nd century.[98] The creation of a Christian canon was probably a response to the career of the heretic Marcion (c. 85–160), who established a canon of his own with just one gospel, the Gospel of Marcion, similar to the Gospel of Luke.[99] The Muratorian canon, the earliest surviving list of books considered (by its own author at least) to form Christian scripture, included Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Irenaeus of Lyons went further, stating that there must be four gospels and only four because there were four corners of the Earth and thus the Church should have four pillars.[1][100] He referred to the four collectively as the "fourfold gospel" (euangelion tetramorphon).[101]
Remove ads
The many apocryphal gospels arose from the 1st century onward, frequently under assumed names to enhance their credibility and authority, and often from within branches of Christianity that were eventually branded heretical.[102] They can be broadly organised into the following categories:[103]
- Infancy gospels: arose in the 2nd century, including the Gospel of James, also called the Protoevangelium, which was the first to introduce the concept of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, and the Infancy Gospel of Thomas (not to be confused with the unrelated Coptic Gospel of Thomas), both of which related many miraculous incidents from the life of Mary and the childhood of Jesus that are not included in the canonical gospels.
- Ministry gospels
- Sayings gospels and agrapha
- Passion, resurrection and post-resurrection gospels
- Gospel harmonies: in which the four canonical gospels are combined into a single narrative, either to present a consistent text or to produce a more accessible account of Jesus' life.
The apocryphal gospels can also be seen in terms of the communities which produced them:
- The Jewish-Christian gospels are the products of Christians of Jewish origin who had not given up their Jewish identity: they regarded Jesus as the messiah of the Jewish scripture but did not agree that he was God, an idea which, although central to Christianity as it eventually developed, is contrary to Jewish beliefs.
- Gnostic gospels uphold the idea that the universe is the product of a hierarchy of gods, of whom the Jewish god is a rather low-ranking member. Gnosticism holds that Jesus was entirely "spirit", and that his earthly life and death were therefore only an appearance, not a reality. Many Gnostic texts deal not in concepts of sin and repentance, but with illusion and enlightenment.[104]
| Title | Probable date | Content |
|---|---|---|
| Epistle of the Apostles | Mid 2nd c. | Anti-gnostic dialogue between Jesus and the disciples after the resurrection, emphasising the reality of the flesh and of Jesus' fleshly resurrection |
| Gospel According to the Hebrews | Early 2nd c. | Events in the life of Jesus; Jewish-Christian, with possible gnostic overtones |
| Gospel of the Ebionites | Early 2nd c. | Jewish-Christian, embodying anti-sacrificial concerns |
| Gospel of the Egyptians | Early 2nd c. | "Salome" figures prominently; Jewish-Christian stressing asceticism |
| Gospel of Mary | 2nd c. | Dialogue of Mary Magdalene with the apostles, and her vision of Jesus' secret teachings.
It was originally written in Greek and is often interpreted as a Gnostic text. It is typically not considered a gospel by scholars since it does not focus on the life of Jesus.[106] |
| Gospel of the Nazareans | Early 2nd c. | Aramaic version of Matthew, possibly lacking the first two chapters; Jewish-Christian |
| Gospel of Nicodemus | 5th c. | Jesus' trial, crucifixion and descent into Hell |
| Gospel of Peter | Early 2nd c. | Fragmentary narrative of Jesus' trial, death and emergence from the tomb. It seems to be hostile toward Jews and includes docetic elements.[107] It is a narrative gospel and is notable for asserting that Herod, not Pontius Pilate, ordered the crucifixion of Jesus. It had been lost but was rediscovered in the 19th century.[107] |
| Gospel of Philip | 3rd c. | Mystical reflections of the disciple Philip |
| Gospel of the Saviour | Late 2nd c. | Fragmentary account of Jesus' last hours |
| Coptic Gospel of Thomas | Early 2nd c. | The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church says that the original may date from c. 150.[108] Some scholars believe that it may represent a tradition independent from the canonical gospels, but that developed over a long time and was influenced by Matthew and Luke;[108] other scholars believe it is a later text, dependent from the canonical gospels.[109][110] While it can be understood in Gnostic terms, it lacks the characteristic features of Gnostic doctrine.[108] It includes two unique parables, the parable of the empty jar and the parable of the assassin.[111] It had been lost but was discovered, in a Coptic version dating from c. 350, at Nag Hammadi in 1945–46, and three papyri, dated to c. 200, which contain fragments of a Greek text similar to but not identical with that in the Coptic language, have also been found.[108] |
| Infancy Gospel of Thomas | Early 2nd c. | Miraculous deeds of Jesus between the ages of five and twelve |
| Gospel of Truth | Mid 2nd c. | Joys of Salvation |
| Papyrus Egerton 2 | Early 2nd c. | Fragmentary, four episodes from the life of Jesus |
| Diatessaron | Late 2nd c. | Gospel harmony (and the first such gospel harmony) composed by Tatian; may have been intended to replace the separate gospels as an authoritative text. It was accepted for liturgical purposes for as much as two centuries in Syria, but was eventually suppressed.[112][113] |
| Protoevangelium of James | Mid 2nd c. | Birth and early life of Mary, and birth of Jesus |
| Gospel of Marcion | Mid 2nd c. | Marcion of Sinope, c. 150, had a much shorter version of the gospel of Luke, differing substantially from what has now become the standard text of the gospel and far less oriented towards the Jewish scriptures. Marcion's critics said that he had edited out the portions of Luke he did not like, though Marcion argued that his was the more genuinely original text. He is said to have rejected all other gospels, including those of Matthew, Mark and especially John, which he alleged had been forged by Irenaeus. |
| Secret Gospel of Mark | Uncertain | Allegedly a longer version of Mark written for an elect audience |
| Gospel of Judas | Late 2nd c. | Purports to tell the story of the gospel from the perspective of Judas, the disciple who is usually said to have betrayed Jesus. It paints an unusual picture of the relationship between Jesus and Judas, in that it appears to interpret Judas's act not as betrayal, but rather as an act of obedience to the instructions of Jesus. The text was recovered from a cave in Egypt by a thief and thereafter sold on the black market until it was finally discovered by a collector who, with the help of academics from Yale and Princeton, was able to verify its authenticity. The document itself does not claim to have been authored by Judas (it is, rather, a gospel about Judas), and is known to date to at least 180 AD.[114] |
| Gospel of Barnabas | 14th–16th c. | Contradicts the ministry of Jesus in canonical New Testament and strongly denies Pauline doctrine, but has clear parallels with Islam, mentioning Muhammad as Messenger of God. Jesus identifies himself as a prophet, not the son of God.[115] |
Remove ads
Remove ads
- Sanders (1995, p. 5): "The main sources for our knowledge about Jesus himself, the gospels in the New Testament, are, from the point of view of the historian, tainted by the fact that they were written by people who intended to glorify their hero [...] Despite this [...] we have a good idea of the external course of his life, especially his public career."
- The Gospels are a-historical documents:
- Schoeps (1968, p. 261–262): "The Gospels cannot be equated with [...] biographies [...] [Their] primary purpose was not to present a detailed historical picture of the life of Jesus. And the non-Christian materials [...] provide us with no essential new knowledge beyond the accounts of the Gospels [...] [Thus] the situation in regard to sources is highly unsatisfactory; legendary and historical accounts are hopelessly intertwined. The historian must recognize that the materials available to us do not enable us to reconstruct Jesus as he really was. [They have] only the Jesus the early disciples saw, the Christ who has survived in the beliefs of the Christian community.
- Sanders (2010): "John, however, is so different that it cannot be reconciled with the Synoptics except in very general ways [...] Scholars have unanimously chosen the Synoptic Gospels’ version of Jesus’ teaching [...] The Synoptic Gospels, then, are the primary sources for knowledge of the historical Jesus. They are not, however, the equivalent of an academic biography of a recent historical figure. Instead, the Synoptic Gospels are theological documents that provide information the authors regarded as necessary for the religious development of the Christian communities in which they worked."
- Ehrman (1999, p. 53): "... early Christians who passed along the traditions sometimes found it legitimate and necessary to change a historical fact in order to make a historical point [...] since the Gospels preserve traditions that have been modified over time in their retelling, it is impossible simply to take these stories at face value and uncritically assume that they represent historically accurate information."
- Dunn (1995, pp. 371–372): "Through the main body of the Synoptic tradition, I believe, we have in most cases direct access to the teaching and ministry of Jesus as it was remembered from the beginning of the transmission process (which often predates Easter) and so fairly direct access to the ministry and teaching of Jesus through the eyes and ears of those who went about with him."
- In "Jesus Remembered (2003), Dunn asesses "what 'goes back to Jesus'." Dunn (2003, p. 329): "I emphasize again that I do not envisage 'getting back to Jesus' himself. All we have are the impressions which Jesus made, the remembered Jesus."
- Sanders (2010): "John, however, is so different that it cannot be reconciled with the Synoptics except in very general ways [...] Scholars have unanimously chosen the Synoptic Gospels’ version of Jesus’ teaching [...] The Synoptic Gospels, then, are the primary sources for knowledge of the historical Jesus. They are not, however, the equivalent of an academic biography of a recent historical figure. Instead, the Synoptic Gospels are theological documents that provide information the authors regarded as necessary for the religious development of the Christian communities in which they worked."
- According to Simon Gathercole, the topic of the anonymity of the Gospels has received little scholarly attention and a "dissenting few" scholars have argued that the traditional attributions to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are original.[59]
- The priority of Mark is accepted by most scholars, but there are important dissenting opinions: see the article Synoptic problem.
- The debate over the composition of John is too complex to be treated adequately in a single paragraph; for a more nuanced view see Aune (1987), "Gospel of John".[72]
- As Luke's attempt to link the birth of Jesus to the census of Quirinius demonstrates, there is no guarantee that the gospels are historically accurate. (Reddish 2011, p. 22) Indeed, most critical scholars view the nativity of Jesus as a theological, rather than historical, narrative.See: W. D. Davies and E. P. Sanders, "Jesus from the Jewish point of view", in William Horbury (ed.), The Cambridge History of Judaism, vol 3: the Early Roman Period, 1984; The New Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible: Volume 3 Abingdon Press, 2008. pp. 42, 269–70.
Remove ads
Remove ads
Wikiwand in your browser!
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.
Remove ads