On The Gospels
I find it difficult to accredit the Gospels with an excessive amount in terms of historical nature. They are essential to Christianity, and are a fine piece of literature if they are to be read as such. Yet from the point of the historian how ought they to be received?
As Professor Thomas F.X. Noble has stated, a major problem with the Jesus narratives is the fact that there is nothing to cross-reference them with. Mathew’s Gospel is probably the oldest, with Luke and Mark probably knowing his gospel. John’s Gospel is somewhat unique to the others, but it still tells, to an extent, the same story. There are other Gospels such as (Bloom’s favorite) the Gospel of Thomas, as well as the apocryphal Gospels, but the four canonical gospels have been the primary sources for the life of Jesus the past two millennia.
It is somewhat probably that the man we have today come to think of as Jesus of Nazareth did actually exist. Tacitus and Josephus apparently make some passing remarks about the man Jesus, but there are some theories that exist about these. One is the idea that later historians have doctored the original texts (blasphemy, I know) to include Jesus. I hope this is not the case but it cannot be ruled out. However, I doubt this.
So, the man Jesus did indeed exist. However, the gospels present a clear conflict. Actually, they present many, but some are starker than the others. The first of which is the notion of time. When was Jesus born, and when did he die? The major conflict in this is that the gospels (my capitalization in this piece needs editing) is that at one point they claim he was born during the reign of Herod, but then say there was a census in the year of his birth. As Noble puts it, you need to pick one: census or Herod; you cannot have both.
There are a multitude of other contradictions, ambiguities, and physical impossibilities encapsulated within the Gospels. If they are to be taken as literal history, they fall very short of any respectable sort of history or historiography. But the Gospels are not meant to be read as pure history. Some of the basic facts and the structural outline (besides the virgin birth, but this entire concept is probably just an error in translation that has greatly affected the western tradition, but another essay another time) of his life are generally accepted as true, or at least possible. For example, the crucifixion is a possible historical truth; Pilate was indeed in charge of punishing criminals, and crucifixion was a means of taking the life of a criminal. Yet improbabilities abound, there are indeed questions. For example, Jesus was arrested at night, which is unlikely, for most were carried out during the day. There are a multitude of others of these parts of the life of Jesus that are not necessarily falsities, but are not in tune with the regular goings on of typical Roman life. For example, the region where Jesus was raised is described as a rural area where in fact archaeology has shown that it was more of a bustling urban centre in the early first century AD/CE.
I feel it proper to address the notion that most of Jesus’ life is deeply shrouded in mystery, and many of his years we know literally nothing about. It is also clear that we know little about his family. Very little of the life of a man who is the essential figure to the longest lasting institution in the western world is known. When compared to other figures of comparable importance such as Confucius or Mohammed much more is known. However, a figure such as Zoroaster (Zarathustra) has less historical information written about him than Jesus (excuse the grammar in that sentence). Siddhartha’s life is also shrouded in mystery, but we still know a decent amount. Lao-Tzu is similar to Zarathustra, and it is still a great mystery of Lao-Tzu existed. It is probable that Zoroaster existed, but the question is when. His life has been dated from anywhere from 3000 years ago to 2500 years ago. At least with Jesus we know that the Jesus movement started some 2000 years ago, and we are positive within decade or so.
To recapitulate, hitherto the fact that the gospels are fairly unreliable historically outside the fact that Jesus of Nazareth (Ιησούς Χριστός, c. -6 – 27) probably existed has been discussed and the historical nature of the man and his life causes great distress for historians. Yet the Gospel can be, and have primarily been read for something other than their historical nature; they have been read as religious or inspirational literature. The man Jesus portrayed in the gospels is unparalleled in terms of his righteousness and power; and if Jesus is God, and Jesus is the incarnation/son of God then God is good. The profundity of this claim is immense. The fact that God is good (ignore the problem of what is good and what is evil for right now) is a profound notion. Through the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament, but Bloom says no self respecting Jew calls the Hebrew Bible the Old Testament, and as an ethnic Jew I refer to it as the Hebrew Bible), God is shown to have chosen the Jews as a whole, but not every single one is infallible. God is shown to be wrathful and vengeful in Genesis (especially in Noah, Genesis 6-9) and especially in Job, and his absolute righteousness is sometimes thrown into question. The Jesus syllogism shows that God is good, and that is a cornerstone aspect of Christianity.
In viewing the Gospels in terms of devotional literature outside of the fact that God is good, Jesus is portrayed as the perfect human being; Jesus is infallible. Briefly I would like to state that Jesus drank wine, and I believe that any drug use is a great vice so that bothers me. Regardless, Jesus as the embodiment of the divine being gives Christians a model human to use as a role model. Jesus is perfect in his morality, and so one should ask “what would Jesus do?” For if God is infinitely wise, and Jesus is God, Jesus is infinitely wise, and we ought to follow Jesus. I must say, that if everyone embodied the spirit of Christ then this world would at least be a more peaceful place.
The last aspect of the Gospels as prime religious literature is in their purpose. The Gospels were written as Christian literature, and it can be argued that they ought not to be analyzed as anything but that. To look for historical nature in them might be looking in the wrong area. Still, the Gospels are powerful pieces of religious literature that are to be taken seriously by the believer. A final thought on reading the Gospels as religious literature is that they might be best read as part fact and part metaphor/allegory that combine to form a picture of a guide to a better life. What if Jesus is not the son of God, or divine at all, but rather a preacher who preaches the way to a “better” and “happier” life. Take for example Jesus’ turning of the water into wine (I am aware this is slightly out of context). An interpretation of this is that he literally did not take H20 molecules and turn them into wine, but with Christ in your life it is so incredible that even something as simple as water can feel like the ecstasy (I don’t drink for the record) of wine. Are the Gospels to be taken literally? If they are history than yes, for in true history there is no exaggeration, 20,000 men means 20,000 men, not 100,000 or 2,000. However, the Gospels are religious literature, so a miracle that appears to violate the laws of physics or nature is probably not literally the act that is reported. It is probably a symbol or metaphor and if it is supposed to literally signify a miracle I have excessive trouble attaching any credibility to it.
If the Gospels are not to be read as history or as Christian literature, how are they to be read? The next main way in which the Gospels are to be read is as literature. In terms of literature, they are the narrative of a wise preacher written in a fairly interesting style with a very deep philosophical meaning. They are then attached to the canon of Greek literature, cementing it as one of the proudest literary traditions of all time, probably only the English literary tradition can eclipse it. Granted the Greek literary tradition is very strong on its own, but if the Gospels are to be included it only increases its greatness. Many a literary critic, especially in recent times, e.g. the man I reference all too often because he is my favorite critic, Harold Bloom, has read them as high literature. He is by no means the first to do so but his recent criticisms of them are quite profound. This is personally my favorite way of reading the Gospels, although I am only a budding scholar of religion and literature and have not read them multiple times for the most part, and I do not have an extreme familiarity with them, and I do not claim to. Yet it is fact that the Gospels have been read as high literature, and will continue to be read as such in our increasing secularizing West.
The last way to view the Gospels, or the last one that shall be discussed, is as wisdom literature. This is basically reading them as religious literature but without the religion, or adding them onto the canon of biblical wisdom literature a la Job and Ecclesiastes and possibly the apocryphal wisdom in Ecclesiasticus and The Gospel of Thomas which has been primarily read as a wisdom book as opposed to an insight into Jesus himself. This will be treating each Gospel individually, and as a source of wisdom, and the fact that they follow the same protagonist is irrelevant.
In summation, the Gospels have hitherto been taken as history by much of Christendom. However, they are quite historically unreliable; yet most gospel readers are not looking for history, they are looking for wisdom or religious inspiration; whether they tell the actual story of Jesus of Nazareth is irrelevant. Lastly, the Gospels have been read as works of high literature, which (after the heart of Simone Weil) have been taken in the wonderful tradition of Greek literature. To view Jesus as a Greek philosopher (as Weil did) and the Gospels as works comparable to the Homeric epics may be to get the most out of Jesus Christ, and the early Christian tradition.
As Professor Thomas F.X. Noble has stated, a major problem with the Jesus narratives is the fact that there is nothing to cross-reference them with. Mathew’s Gospel is probably the oldest, with Luke and Mark probably knowing his gospel. John’s Gospel is somewhat unique to the others, but it still tells, to an extent, the same story. There are other Gospels such as (Bloom’s favorite) the Gospel of Thomas, as well as the apocryphal Gospels, but the four canonical gospels have been the primary sources for the life of Jesus the past two millennia.
It is somewhat probably that the man we have today come to think of as Jesus of Nazareth did actually exist. Tacitus and Josephus apparently make some passing remarks about the man Jesus, but there are some theories that exist about these. One is the idea that later historians have doctored the original texts (blasphemy, I know) to include Jesus. I hope this is not the case but it cannot be ruled out. However, I doubt this.
So, the man Jesus did indeed exist. However, the gospels present a clear conflict. Actually, they present many, but some are starker than the others. The first of which is the notion of time. When was Jesus born, and when did he die? The major conflict in this is that the gospels (my capitalization in this piece needs editing) is that at one point they claim he was born during the reign of Herod, but then say there was a census in the year of his birth. As Noble puts it, you need to pick one: census or Herod; you cannot have both.
There are a multitude of other contradictions, ambiguities, and physical impossibilities encapsulated within the Gospels. If they are to be taken as literal history, they fall very short of any respectable sort of history or historiography. But the Gospels are not meant to be read as pure history. Some of the basic facts and the structural outline (besides the virgin birth, but this entire concept is probably just an error in translation that has greatly affected the western tradition, but another essay another time) of his life are generally accepted as true, or at least possible. For example, the crucifixion is a possible historical truth; Pilate was indeed in charge of punishing criminals, and crucifixion was a means of taking the life of a criminal. Yet improbabilities abound, there are indeed questions. For example, Jesus was arrested at night, which is unlikely, for most were carried out during the day. There are a multitude of others of these parts of the life of Jesus that are not necessarily falsities, but are not in tune with the regular goings on of typical Roman life. For example, the region where Jesus was raised is described as a rural area where in fact archaeology has shown that it was more of a bustling urban centre in the early first century AD/CE.
I feel it proper to address the notion that most of Jesus’ life is deeply shrouded in mystery, and many of his years we know literally nothing about. It is also clear that we know little about his family. Very little of the life of a man who is the essential figure to the longest lasting institution in the western world is known. When compared to other figures of comparable importance such as Confucius or Mohammed much more is known. However, a figure such as Zoroaster (Zarathustra) has less historical information written about him than Jesus (excuse the grammar in that sentence). Siddhartha’s life is also shrouded in mystery, but we still know a decent amount. Lao-Tzu is similar to Zarathustra, and it is still a great mystery of Lao-Tzu existed. It is probable that Zoroaster existed, but the question is when. His life has been dated from anywhere from 3000 years ago to 2500 years ago. At least with Jesus we know that the Jesus movement started some 2000 years ago, and we are positive within decade or so.
To recapitulate, hitherto the fact that the gospels are fairly unreliable historically outside the fact that Jesus of Nazareth (Ιησούς Χριστός, c. -6 – 27) probably existed has been discussed and the historical nature of the man and his life causes great distress for historians. Yet the Gospel can be, and have primarily been read for something other than their historical nature; they have been read as religious or inspirational literature. The man Jesus portrayed in the gospels is unparalleled in terms of his righteousness and power; and if Jesus is God, and Jesus is the incarnation/son of God then God is good. The profundity of this claim is immense. The fact that God is good (ignore the problem of what is good and what is evil for right now) is a profound notion. Through the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament, but Bloom says no self respecting Jew calls the Hebrew Bible the Old Testament, and as an ethnic Jew I refer to it as the Hebrew Bible), God is shown to have chosen the Jews as a whole, but not every single one is infallible. God is shown to be wrathful and vengeful in Genesis (especially in Noah, Genesis 6-9) and especially in Job, and his absolute righteousness is sometimes thrown into question. The Jesus syllogism shows that God is good, and that is a cornerstone aspect of Christianity.
In viewing the Gospels in terms of devotional literature outside of the fact that God is good, Jesus is portrayed as the perfect human being; Jesus is infallible. Briefly I would like to state that Jesus drank wine, and I believe that any drug use is a great vice so that bothers me. Regardless, Jesus as the embodiment of the divine being gives Christians a model human to use as a role model. Jesus is perfect in his morality, and so one should ask “what would Jesus do?” For if God is infinitely wise, and Jesus is God, Jesus is infinitely wise, and we ought to follow Jesus. I must say, that if everyone embodied the spirit of Christ then this world would at least be a more peaceful place.
The last aspect of the Gospels as prime religious literature is in their purpose. The Gospels were written as Christian literature, and it can be argued that they ought not to be analyzed as anything but that. To look for historical nature in them might be looking in the wrong area. Still, the Gospels are powerful pieces of religious literature that are to be taken seriously by the believer. A final thought on reading the Gospels as religious literature is that they might be best read as part fact and part metaphor/allegory that combine to form a picture of a guide to a better life. What if Jesus is not the son of God, or divine at all, but rather a preacher who preaches the way to a “better” and “happier” life. Take for example Jesus’ turning of the water into wine (I am aware this is slightly out of context). An interpretation of this is that he literally did not take H20 molecules and turn them into wine, but with Christ in your life it is so incredible that even something as simple as water can feel like the ecstasy (I don’t drink for the record) of wine. Are the Gospels to be taken literally? If they are history than yes, for in true history there is no exaggeration, 20,000 men means 20,000 men, not 100,000 or 2,000. However, the Gospels are religious literature, so a miracle that appears to violate the laws of physics or nature is probably not literally the act that is reported. It is probably a symbol or metaphor and if it is supposed to literally signify a miracle I have excessive trouble attaching any credibility to it.
If the Gospels are not to be read as history or as Christian literature, how are they to be read? The next main way in which the Gospels are to be read is as literature. In terms of literature, they are the narrative of a wise preacher written in a fairly interesting style with a very deep philosophical meaning. They are then attached to the canon of Greek literature, cementing it as one of the proudest literary traditions of all time, probably only the English literary tradition can eclipse it. Granted the Greek literary tradition is very strong on its own, but if the Gospels are to be included it only increases its greatness. Many a literary critic, especially in recent times, e.g. the man I reference all too often because he is my favorite critic, Harold Bloom, has read them as high literature. He is by no means the first to do so but his recent criticisms of them are quite profound. This is personally my favorite way of reading the Gospels, although I am only a budding scholar of religion and literature and have not read them multiple times for the most part, and I do not have an extreme familiarity with them, and I do not claim to. Yet it is fact that the Gospels have been read as high literature, and will continue to be read as such in our increasing secularizing West.
The last way to view the Gospels, or the last one that shall be discussed, is as wisdom literature. This is basically reading them as religious literature but without the religion, or adding them onto the canon of biblical wisdom literature a la Job and Ecclesiastes and possibly the apocryphal wisdom in Ecclesiasticus and The Gospel of Thomas which has been primarily read as a wisdom book as opposed to an insight into Jesus himself. This will be treating each Gospel individually, and as a source of wisdom, and the fact that they follow the same protagonist is irrelevant.
In summation, the Gospels have hitherto been taken as history by much of Christendom. However, they are quite historically unreliable; yet most gospel readers are not looking for history, they are looking for wisdom or religious inspiration; whether they tell the actual story of Jesus of Nazareth is irrelevant. Lastly, the Gospels have been read as works of high literature, which (after the heart of Simone Weil) have been taken in the wonderful tradition of Greek literature. To view Jesus as a Greek philosopher (as Weil did) and the Gospels as works comparable to the Homeric epics may be to get the most out of Jesus Christ, and the early Christian tradition.
posted by Brian Hillman at 8:27 PM
3 Comments:
as for the divinity of Jesus the requirement for books in the new testament to be called canonical was that they were written by witnesses of Jesus' life. the four gospels all age around 50 AD (not sure, somewhere in the 1st century; i should look this up again), while it is historically accepted that gnostic "gospels" are all dated much later, around 200 AD and could be seen as an off-color translation of Jesus' life and death and resurrection. The point is, these gospels have been accepted since the beginnings of Christianity and there is less doubt than you think that Jesus was always considered divine. As for the council of Nicea, where it is rumored that Jesus was voted his divinity, it was actually to quell the uprisings of a heretic that was spreading untruths about Jesus. The council was to reaffirm the accepted canon and to prevent people like this from infiltrating christianity and sabotaging it. (the man's name was Arius) There is proof of this because early christian leaders referred to god as divine, before the council.
As for the physical inconsistencies of Jesus' time, i think much can be explained. First of all, on the matter of Jesus drinking wine, that was a tradition of jewish people at the time and was not considered immoral at all, unless someone wasted his money and was a drunkard. Jesus was, in fact, jewish, so he had to follow these customs basically. Also on the matter of Jesus being arrested at night, it may be true that Romans did not arrest people at night, but the problem is Jesus wasn't arrested by Romans. Matthew 26:47 states, "The words were barely out of his mouth when Judas (the one from the Twelve) showed up, and with him a gang from the high priests and religious leaders brandishing swords and clubs." Sorry, but Jesus was arrested by Jewish leaders and was then brought to the high court to be tried, and was then turned over to the Roman justice.
On the matter of us not knowing much about Jesus' life, this can easily be explained because the gospels were all eye-witness accounts (stated earlier) The disciples didnt know jesus until they became followers of Jesus, so it makes sense that they wouldnt write much about his earlier life. as for his birth and early stories, the apostles probably heard stories from people who had witnessed the birth of jesus, or maybe were taught by jesus himself. As for other religious figures having much more documented histories, I believe this only makes them less believable. Does it make sense to know everything about a figure's life? If you ask me that means that they are more likely the product of myth, since everything is known about them.
Well i have more to say but its getting late and this is like the longest comment in history.
Please consider some of the points i make and try to see that there is fact where you don't see it. if you want to actually debate about this thats fine, im ready for a little debate. i dont want this to be cast aside like seemingly all my other beliefs.
one last word, there are plenty of historians that accept biblical teachings. Its not as if christianity has no backing behind it. you should broaden your horizons and try talking to some christians once in a while and see what their influence can do. and like i said, "cracking davinci's code" is actually a good book and id recommend it if you want to learn more actual fact without heavily christian overtones.
I just read your second paragraph and most open-minded historians DO accept the gospels as authentic first-hand looks at Jesus' life. The only thing historians debate about is whether the divine acts of jesus were exaggerated or just added. But like i said, all gospels showing Jesus as divine are dated back to very early times and all other gospels, such as the gnostics which teach Jesus as a man and married to Mary Magdelene, are dated much later and are more likely to be an adaptation, or an actual attempt at misleading early christians, such as Arius in my earlier comment.
While the new testament can indeed be read simply for religious wisdom, there is more truth than you or even I realized in it. You should be more objective. You state views of historians and historical "facts" but these are all from one side of the argument. If you are truly trying to be objective you should read more of people defending the new testament and you would realize facts where you expected none.
Post a Comment
<< Home