stringtranslate.com

Gospel

Fragment of a flyleaf with the title of the Gospel of Matthew, ευαγγελιον κ̣ατ̣α μαθ᾽θαιον (Euangelion kata Maththaion). From Papyrus 4 (c. AD 200), it is the earliest manuscript title for Matthew and one of the earliest manuscript titles for any gospel.

Gospel (Greek: εὐαγγέλιον; Latin: evangelium) 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]

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half of the first century AD,[7] and modern biblical scholars are cautious of relying on the gospels uncritically as historical documents, though according to E. P. Sanders "we have a good idea of [...]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."[8][note 1].[9][10][11][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,[12][13] and the focus of research has shifted to Jesus as remembered by his followers,[14][15][note 3][note 4] and understanding the Gospels themselves.[16]

The canonical gospels are the four which appear in the New Testament of the Bible. They were probably written between AD 66 and 110.[17][18][19] 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.[20] According to the majority of scholars, Mark was the first to be written, using a variety of sources,[21][22] 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.[23] There is near-consensus that John had its origins as the hypothetical Signs Gospel thought to have been circulated within a Johannine community.[24] The reliability of John has been questioned and the Synoptic Gospels are the primary sources for Christ's ministry.[10][note 5]

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.[25][26] 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.

Etymology

Gospel is the Old English translation of the Hellenistic Greek term εὐαγγέλιον, meaning "good news";[27] 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.

Canonical gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John

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.[28] Each has its own distinctive understanding of him and his divine role[26][29] 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.[30]

Matthew, Mark, and Luke are termed the synoptic gospels because they present very similar accounts of the life of Jesus.[31] 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.[32] 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;[33][34] 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.[35]

The authors of Matthew and Luke added infancy and resurrection narratives to the story they found in Mark, although the two differ markedly.[36] 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,[37] and the "young man" who appears at Jesus' tomb in Mark becomes a radiant angel in Matthew.[38][39] 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.[40]

John, the most overtly theological, is the first to make Christological judgements outside the context of the narrative of Jesus's life.[26] He presents a significantly different picture of Jesus's career,[31] omitting any mention of his ancestry, birth and childhood, his baptism, temptation and transfiguration;[31] 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.[41] The Gospel of John is the only gospel to call Jesus God, and in contrast to Mark, where Jesus hides his identity as messiah, in John he openly proclaims it.[42]

Composition

The Synoptic sources: the Gospel of Mark (the triple tradition), Q (the double tradition), and material unique to Matthew (the M source), Luke (the L source), and Mark[43]

Like the rest of the New Testament, the four gospels were written in Greek.[44] The Gospel of Mark probably dates from c. AD 66–70,[17] Matthew and Luke around AD 85–90,[18] and John AD 90–110.[19] Despite the traditional ascriptions, most scholars hold that all four are anonymous[note 6] and most scholars agree that none were written by eyewitnesses.[20] 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.[46][45]

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.[47] The stages of this process can be summarized as follows:[48]

Mark is generally agreed to be the first gospel;[21] 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.[22] 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).[23][note 7] Mark, Matthew, and Luke are called the synoptic gospels because of their close similarities of content, arrangement, and language.[50] 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.[51] 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.[24][note 8]

All four also use the Jewish scriptures, by quoting or referencing passages, interpreting texts, or alluding to or echoing biblical themes.[53] Such use can be extensive: Mark's description of the Parousia (second coming) is made up almost entirely of quotations from scripture.[54] Matthew is full of quotations and allusions,[55] and although John uses scripture in a far less explicit manner, its influence is still pervasive.[56] Their source was the Greek version of the scriptures, called the Septuagint; they do not seem familiar with the original Hebrew.[57]

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,[9][10][11][note 2][note 9] though according to Sanders they provide a good idea of the public career of Jesus.[8][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.[58] 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."[59] Most of these are insignificant, but some are significant,[60] an example being Matthew 1:18, altered to imply the pre-existence of Jesus.[61] 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.[62]

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.[63] 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,[64] and the Synoptic Gospels are the primary sources for Christ's ministry.[10][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.[14]

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.[65] 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.[66]

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.[12] 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."[67][15][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.[12] 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.[16] 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."[68]

Textual history and canonisation

The oldest gospel text known is 𝔓52, a fragment of John dating from the first half of the 2nd century.[69] 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.[70] 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][71] He referred to the four collectively as the "fourfold gospel" (euangelion tetramorphon).[72]

Non-canonical (apocryphal) gospels

The Gospel of Thomas

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.[73] They can be broadly organised into the following categories:[74]

The apocryphal gospels can also be seen in terms of the communities which produced them:

See also

Notes

  1. ^ a b 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."
  2. ^ a b 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."
  3. ^ 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."
  4. ^ a b 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."
  5. ^ a b 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."
  6. ^ 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.[45]
  7. ^ The priority of Mark is accepted by most scholars, but there are important dissenting opinions: see the article Synoptic problem.
  8. ^ 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".[52]
  9. ^ 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.

References

  1. ^ a b Cross & Livingstone 2005, p. 697.
  2. ^ Alexander 2006, p. 16.
  3. ^ a b Lincoln 2004, p. 133.
  4. ^ a b Ehrman 1999, p. 52.
  5. ^ a b Dunn 2005, p. 174.
  6. ^ a b Vermes 2013, p. 32.
  7. ^ a b Keith & Le Donne 2012, p. [page needed].
  8. ^ a b Sanders 1995b, p. 4-5.
  9. ^ a b Schoeps 1968, p. 261–262.
  10. ^ a b c d Sanders 2010.
  11. ^ a b Ehrman 1999, p. 53.
  12. ^ a b c Keith 2016.
  13. ^ Keith & Le Donne 2012.
  14. ^ a b Dunn 1995, pp. 371–372.
  15. ^ a b Dunn 2003.
  16. ^ a b Keith 2012.
  17. ^ a b Perkins 1998, p. 241.
  18. ^ a b Reddish 2011, pp. 108, 144.
  19. ^ a b Lincoln 2005, p. 18.
  20. ^ a b Reddish 2011, pp. 13, 42.
  21. ^ a b Goodacre 2001, p. 56.
  22. ^ a b Boring 2006, pp. 13–14.
  23. ^ a b Levine 2009, p. 6.
  24. ^ a b Burge 2014, p. 309.
  25. ^ Petersen 2010, p. 51.
  26. ^ a b c Culpepper 1999, p. 66.
  27. ^ Woodhead 2004, p. 4.
  28. ^ Thompson 2006, p. 183.
  29. ^ Ehrman, Bart (April 13, 2014). "Jesus as God in the Synoptics (For members)". Ehrman Blog. Archived from the original on 2015-03-11.
  30. ^ Scholz 2009, p. 192.
  31. ^ a b c Burkett 2002, p. 217.
  32. ^ Boring 2006, pp. 1–3.
  33. ^ Burkett 2002, p. 158.
  34. ^ Parker 1997, p. 125.
  35. ^ Telford 1999, p. 148-149.
  36. ^ Eve 2021, p. 29.
  37. ^ Aune 1987, p. 59.
  38. ^ Beaton 2005, pp. 117, 123.
  39. ^ Morris 1986, p. 114.
  40. ^ Johnson 2010a, p. 48.
  41. ^ Anderson 2011, p. 52.
  42. ^ Burkett 2002, p. 214.
  43. ^ Honoré 1986, pp. 95–147.
  44. ^ Porter 2006, p. 185.
  45. ^ a b Gathercole, Simon (2018-10-01). "The Alleged Anonymity of the Canonical Gospels". The Journal of Theological Studies. 69 (2): 447–476. doi:10.1093/jts/fly113. ISSN 0022-5185.
  46. ^ Lindars, Edwards & Court 2000, p. 41.
  47. ^ Reddish 2011, p. 17.
  48. ^ Burkett 2002, pp. 124–125.
  49. ^ Martens 2004, p. 100.
  50. ^ Goodacre 2001, p. 1.
  51. ^ Perkins 2012, p. [page needed].
  52. ^ Aune 1987, pp. 243–245.
  53. ^ Allen 2013, pp. 43–44.
  54. ^ Edwards 2002, p. 403.
  55. ^ Beaton 2005, p. 122.
  56. ^ Lieu 2005, p. 175.
  57. ^ Allen 2013, p. 45.
  58. ^ Tuckett 2000, p. 523.
  59. ^ Ehrman 2005a, pp. 7, 52.
  60. ^ Ehrman 2005a, p. 69.
  61. ^ Ehrman 1996, pp. 75–76.
  62. ^ Reddish 2011, pp. 21–22.
  63. ^ Theissen & Merz 1998, pp. 36–37.
  64. ^ Lincoln 2005, p. 26.
  65. ^ Valantasis, Bleyle & Haugh 2009, pp. 7, 10, 14.
  66. ^ Ehrman 1997, p. 44.
  67. ^ Dunn 2003, p. 130-131.
  68. ^ Barber, Michael (2023). The Historical Jesus and the Temple: Memory, Methodology and the Gospel of Matthew- Foreword by Dale C. Allison, Jr. Cambridge University Press. p. ix. ISBN 978-1009210850.
  69. ^ Fant & Reddish 2008, p. 415.
  70. ^ Ehrman 2005a, p. 34: "Marcion included a Gospel in his canon, a form of what is now the Gospel of Luke"
  71. ^ Ehrman 2005a, p. 35.
  72. ^ Watson 2016, p. 15.
  73. ^ Aune 2003, pp. 199–200.
  74. ^ Ehrman & Plese 2011, p. passim.
  75. ^ Pagels 1989, p. xx.
  76. ^ Ehrman 2005b, pp. xi–xii.
  77. ^ Bernhard 2006, p. 2.
  78. ^ a b Cross & Livingstone 2005, "Gospel of St. Peter".
  79. ^ a b c d Cross & Livingstone 2005, "Gospel of Thomas".
  80. ^ Casey 2010, p. [page needed].
  81. ^ Meier 1991, p. [page needed].
  82. ^ Funk, Hoover & Jesus Seminar 1993, "The Gospel of Thomas".
  83. ^ Metzger 2003, p. 117.
  84. ^ Gamble 1985, pp. 30–35.
  85. ^ Ehrman 2006, p. passim.
  86. ^ Wiegers 1995.

Sources

External links

Wikisource has the text of the 1905 New International Encyclopedia article "Gospel".