Gospel -- thoughts

[jack]

I won't try and summarise the background, for it would be too simplified and provoke much correction. If you're as ignorant of early Christian History as I am, you can do worse than starting at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_Gospels and reading articles linked from there (though you can presumably do better too).

Just about every combination of relationship between Mark, Matthew, and Luke has been proposed by scholars at some point. (Someone even had an enumeration.) For what it's worth, when I was reading, I bore in mind Matthew and Luke being based on Mark and something else (either both on X, or Luke on Matthew, or some combination).

Small observations:

* Mark presents a generally simple and consistent story, although it lacks a lot of the more detailed accounts of the other gospels. It's very consistent with the idea of Jesus as a wandering preacher like John the Baptist.

* All the gospels have an account of Jesus calming a storm, and the disciples saying "even" the wind and the waves obey him. It's interesting to compare this story to the "Which is easier? To say your sins are forgiven, or to say get up and walk? Your sins are forgiven. But now, get up and walk." quote.

* Indeed, now I'm acutely aware of the suggestion that many passages are pre-emptive strikes against heresies people were promulgating around the time the gospel was written. I just can't reliably tell which.

* When Jesus turns up in Nazareth, he's described as having a fairly normal family, and commenting that no-one ever believes in a prophet where he grew up. The later gospels have a passage where his mother and brothers try to visit him, and he says "no, those who believe are my true family". There's not yet suggestions that his early years were characterised by miracles.

* The resurrection is mainly "several women called Mary turned up, and the body was gone, and someone told them Jesus had risen." Most of the miracles accord to Jesus' death. (There's more details in the other gospels.)

* Although if you're taking a very literal reading, I notice that it says "Joseph bought some linen cloth, took the body down, and wrapped it in the cloth. Then he laid it in a tomb that had been cut out of the rock and rolled a stone against the door of the tomb." I don't know what normal burial customs would have been then, if Joseph actually did it himself or had twenty-one servants do it for him, or what a normal size of stone would be, but it got there somehow.

* Matthew reads like someone ticking boxes. "Step one. Burn bras. Step two ???. Step three. Come from Bethlehem. Step four. Come from Egypt. Step five. Come from Nazareth... Step n-1. Be messiah. Step n. Profit spiritually." :)

* John (and Acts of the Apostles and "letters to") has all the theology in.

Comments

[simont]

There's not yet suggestions that his early years were characterised by miracles.

My feeling has generally tended to be that people probably kept quiet about that bit out of respect for the poor parents. One's mind just shies away from even imagining the destructive effect of a miracle-capable three-year-old :-)

[http://users.livejournal.com/vitriol_/]

There's actually a gospel that covers this - the deeply creepy Infancy Gospel of Thomas, in which the young Jesus uses his miracles to kill other children, blind their parents and attack his teacher.

Unsurprisingly, when they came to decide on which gospels to include in the Bible, it was left out.

"... he's a very naughty boy"

[simont]

He was probably deeply resentful of not being able to splash through puddles with the other kids. They all got to make a big splash and a lot of mess, but every time Jesus tried it he just landed on the top of the puddle without disturbing it and they all laughed at him. Can't be a good feeling.

Re: "... he's a very naughty boy"

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

"Do not taunt omnipotent three-year-olds, for they are not subtle and are quick to anger..." I'm against bullying on principle, but I have a particular resolve against bullying infinitely good, infinitely powerful people :)

[simont]

Or, come to think of it, any infinitely powerful people. I can't imagine bullying an infinitely evil one would be terribly healthy either.

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

Indeed. I mean, I have an objection to bullying either infinitely good, or infinitely powerful people (even above and beyond my objection to bullying people at all). Bullying someone who is both is even worse. (Although you could argue, is less than twice as bad, on account of the mercy.)

I can't imagine bullying an infinitely evil one would be terribly healthy either.

No, it never seems to turn out well, and yet, people always seem to try, grabbing Satan at lunchtime and duffing him up to extract various minor wishes, etc.

[rysmiel.livejournal.com]

Was it you who posted the link to the webcomic a few months back about how doing that last actually worked out OK for Alan Moore ?

[robhu.livejournal.com]

There are a number of non-canonical infancy gospels (well, and obviously a lot of non-canonical texts generally).

[thethirdvoice.livejournal.com]

*waves across the office*

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

Hm. If you accept a bit of temporal fudging, it would explain a lot about the old testament. We know that Jesus came to everyone, past and future, but there's always been doubt about how this applied to the old testament, and wonder why God had such a specific covenant with the Israelites, when He later came to everyone in a similar way.

If you accept a progression throughout his life, and when he was 30, he achieved some sort of spiritual enlightenment, and his miracles became increasingly spiritual, until pincacling in a grand death whose physical effects were almost entirely metaphorical, but whose spiritual effects applied all the time to everyone afterwards forever. Then you might conclude that when he was 1, he was equally good and possessed equal divinity, but his miracles would be the pinacle of physicality and directness.

And to whom will the miracle of his birth relate? Presumably, everyone before his birth, just as the miracle of his death applies to everyone afterwards. Because we're inside the universe, we tend to see things temporally, whereas in fact maybe you should attribute most divine manifestation as a sort of wave emanating out from Jesus in both directions.

Or to be more exact, probably the miracle of his birth applied to his ancestors. We know he was descended from lots of different previous prophets. Intermarriage probably meant he was descended from most Israelites.

With two notable exceptions. Shortly before his birth, and shortly before the flood. He wasn't descended from any of those, apart from the ones we know about. And you have to admit, of all the people, and Jews specifically, who get it in the neck, those were the groups of Jews who were really notably un-spared!

I'm not sure how consistently separable the two different traditions are, but if you consider that both "God smash" miracles and more subtle "Here, let me explain to you in 3872 paragraphs" miracles are exactly the right thing to do, but in different ways, then you can attribute the former to baby-Jesus-unsubtly, and the latter to the Father acting from outside time.

[robhu.livejournal.com]

If you accept a bit of temporal fudging, it would explain a lot about the old testament. We know that Jesus came to everyone, past and future, but there's always been doubt about how this applied to the old testament, and wonder why God had such a specific covenant with the Israelites, when He later came to everyone in a similar way.
Christians believe that all people are saved (or not) due to Jesus' death. It's not that the OT people are saved through animal sacrifice, while the NT people are saved through Jesus' death, all of God's people are saved by Jesus' death. Hebrews is a fantastic book dealing with this topic (I'd say Hebrews was much heavier 'theologically' than John, and it's almost entirely about how the OT stuff links up now in the NT and what it actually meant etc). Take a look at Hebrews 8, 9, and 10 for a view on all this (Eden have been doing a series on this, which is excellent). Various things in the OT (such as the sacrifices) are seen as a foreshadowing of what would be ultimately fulfilled in Christ.

If you accept a progression throughout his life, and when he was 30, he achieved some sort of spiritual enlightenment, and his miracles became increasingly spiritual...
As I said elsewhere, I don't think there is any good reason to think that Jesus performed miracles before the Holy Spirit came upon him when he was baptised, and Jesus is portrayed as having an understanding of his role and of the law long before he is 30. See Luke 2:41-52.

I don't think of Jesus birth being a miracle that is something he did. Nor do I think of his death in that way. I don't know what other Christians think, but I think of them as being miracles performed by the Father.

Shortly before his birth, and shortly before the flood. He wasn't descended from any of those, apart from the ones we know about. And you have to admit, of all the people, and Jews specifically, who get it in the neck, those were the groups of Jews who were really notably un-spared!
I'm quite confused by this. What are you referring to here? That some people weren't Jesus' ancestors? I'm completely lost.

I'm not sure how consistently separable the two different traditions are
I'm not sure what two categories of things you're referring to, or how those two things are different 'traditions'. Can you rephrase perhaps?

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

Christians believe that all people are saved (or not) due to Jesus' death.

It's probably obvious I wasn't seriously proposing this interpretation, which I believe is EVERYWHERE contrary to Christian doctrine[1] :) I don't believe in redemption through Jesus in general :)

[1] Although whenever I propose something like this, it invariably turns out to be the So-and-so heresy :)

I'm aware of the general outline of christian belief on redemption-of-people-pre-jesus, though not the details, nor have got to Hebrews yet, but in this system, was imagining the alternative where Jesus' death DIDN'T apply pre-Jesus.

I'm quite confused by this. What are you referring to here?

I was considering (not that I think it's actually true) that maybe Jesus' ancestors were more affected by Jesus' birth echoing backwards in time than other people. And suggesting that various intermarriages would make most people between Adam and Jesus ancestors of his, except for people (a) contemporary to Jesus and (b) just before the flood. And humorously suggesting that the bad fates of (a) kinda being left out of Christianity and (b) drowning were due to the lack of special attention.

I'm not sure how consistently separable the two different traditions are

This humorous interpretation suggests a difference in old-testament miracles between those caused by child-Jesus and those caused by God-Father-outside-time. Except there probably ISN'T a clear division of miracles between into two different sorts.

[robhu.livejournal.com]

I was considering (not that I think it's actually true) that maybe Jesus' ancestors were more affected by Jesus' birth echoing backwards in time than other people
Ah ok.

And humorously suggesting that the bad fates of (a) kinda being left out of Christianity
Does this mean you think (really or as part of your humorous alternate theology idea) that being related (physically - backwards in time) to Jesus gets you something?

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

that being related (physically - backwards in time) to Jesus gets you something?

I am not Dan Brown. Go directly to Go, do not collect five pounds...

Uh, that is, in this analogy, the ancestors got more personal (if not better) attention, because baby Jesus saw the past in terms of parents, and then his immediate family, etc.

But that it doesn't make any difference in the future because adult-Jesus came to everyone, and was perfectly accepting at the time of his death.

[alextfish.livejournal.com]

I get the impression that Jesus' miracles only started after he started his ministry. Obviously that's a more boring story than a super-powered kid, but it seems to be the way the (canonical) Gospels paint it.

[robhu.livejournal.com]

All the gospels have an account of Jesus calming a storm, and the disciples saying "even" the wind and the waves obey him. It's interesting to compare this story to the "Which is easier? To say your sins are forgiven, or to say get up and walk? Your sins are forgiven. But now, get up and walk." quote.
What caught your interest in such a comparison?

Indeed, now I'm acutely aware of the suggestion that many passages are pre-emptive strikes against heresies people were promulgating around the time the gospel was written. I just can't reliably tell which.
What makes you think this? There were attempts (no doubt well meaning) by others to write fake apostolic letter to counter heresy, but AFAICT the writers of the gospels didn't do that -- nor did they need to (responding to misunderstanding and distortion of the gospel is generally dealt with in letters).

There's not yet suggestions that his early years were characterised by miracles.
I don't think there's any reason to believe that Jesus' early life was characterised by miracles. Apart from when he was a child and stayed in 'his fathers house' (Luke 2), I doubt Jesus' life was especially notable (although he'd obviously appear to be a very good Jewish boy what with him not sinning and everything). I suspect (but don't know) that Jesus doing miracles is directly related to him receiving the Holy Spirit after being baptised by John. This seems to be the manner by which miracles are done in both the Old and the New Testaments. I'm no expert here, but I suspect that before that point Jesus -- being fully human lacked the omnipotence we'd otherwise think of God having.

The resurrection is mainly "several women called Mary turned up, and the body was gone, and someone told them Jesus had risen."
And that there was someone suspiciously like an angel there.

[curig.livejournal.com]

Your suggestion that the descent of the Holy Spirit upon Christ at his baptism is somehow key to the divine power he exercises when performing miracles sounds dangerously close to Adoptionism to me. I don't know when Jesus *actually* performed his first miracle, but if one believes in his full divinity, I think it is problematic to suggest there were times when he couldn't.

[robhu.livejournal.com]

It's definitely not adoptionism.

I get the impression from my reading of the gospels that the Holy Spirit is key to some of the overtly supernatural actions of Jesus, and this seems to match the pattern in the Old Testament and the New Testament. I could be wrong, but it seems like a reasonable assumption.

Jesus could have performed miracles prior to those miracles recorded in the scriptures, but I suppose I wonder why they weren't recorded. More importantly than that though if he performed miracles beforehand one has to wonder why his family are unaware that he has.

[hilarityallen.livejournal.com]

A short refinement: it's pretty commonly accepted now (i.e. is the majority view) that the synoptic gospels share common sources, with Matthew and Luke most closely related.

I think the stemma goes something like (warning: it's 5 years since I looked at this):
P
/\
Y Mark
/\
Matt Luke

As the gospels are c. 100 years (give or take a bit) after Jesus' death, there is a certain amount of fluidity in the accounts. However, the earliest sources are still well within the lifetimes of old men who knew Jesus, so are probably reasonably accurate. After about 150 yrs after someone's dead, people do tend to start making shit up.

I don't think you can talk too much about pre-emption of 'heresies', as the concept didn't yet exist. If you're talking about doctrinal direction, a far better picture of this is given in Acts and the Pauline letters.
The three gospels are written for different audiences, and do give a very different picture. Luke was writing for the Jewish community, and is pro all that sort of stuff. Either Matt or Mark was specifically targeting Gentiles - the Roman market.

John is a conscious effort to present a view of God on earth; the synoptics are very much concerned with Jesus the Man.

[woodpijn.livejournal.com]

Luke was writing for the Jewish community, and is pro all that sort of stuff. Either Matt or Mark was specifically targeting Gentiles - the Roman market.
Yes, although actually the other way round (Matthew was a Jew and focused on Jesus' Jewish heritage and how he fulfilled Old Testament prophecy; Luke was writing for the Gentiles and emphasised Jesus' inclusivity).

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

I think the stemma goes something like

Oh, that's interesting. It similar to what I picked up from the internet, but not the same. (The most common views I saw mentioned as any kind of standard were Luke and Matthew both relying on Mark and another source, or Mark->Matthew->Luke. But then, depending on Mark, and depending on something Mark depended on, are very related.)

[robhu.livejournal.com]

I see some have commented on dating the gospels... In terms of (the earliest gospel,) Mark's gospel (written by John Mark, an attendant of Peter's) the main issue is what you do with what appear to be references to the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. If you assume that the text could not have referred to the destruction of the Temple before it occurred because, well, people (even wonderful people like Jesus) can't know what is going to happen in the future because they're just people you end up with a date after 70 AD. Otherwise you end up with a date before 70 AD. Compare this date for Mark against Galatians, which was written in the late 40s or early 50s.

Mark Goodacre (associate progessor of the NT at Duke) has a good (technical) paper on this Dating the crucial sources in early Christianity. A more accessible introductory article would be The Dating of the New Testament on Theology network.

[gareth-rees.livejournal.com]

Richard Carrier has an entertaining article on the many difficulties involved in establishing reliable dates for the New Testament:

We could still argue for a terminus ante quem for [the letters of Ignatius] if they are all forgeries (since it wouldn't matter if they were, as a forged quotation of Matthew is still a quotation of Matthew) by observing that Polycarp, at some unspecified time in his life, wrote his own letter as a preface to the entire collection of Ignatian letters, and Polycarp was martyred sometime between 155 and 168. Or so we think.

[robhu.livejournal.com]

Yes. Carrier seems to be popular amongst people who have a hostile attitude towards Christianity, but he is not considered very highly among biblical historians (I'm not saying this is the case with you - you might just be unaware that Carrier is not a very good person to quote).

Carrier's atheism seems to have propelled him to the fairly indefensible position (among academics, whether they have Christian beliefs or not) that "it [is] very probable Jesus never actually existed as a historical person, which has changed my perspective considerably".

[gareth-rees.livejournal.com]

Atheism vs Christianity shouldn't be an issue here. The most dogmatic atheist and the most fundamentalist Christian agree that the gospels were written down at some time in the first couple of centuries, so they ought to be able to agree on the range of dates that are supported by the historical evidence. Carrier's point is that New Testament scholarship is not yet at a stage where this can happen, because scholarship is mixed up with apologetics.

[robhu.livejournal.com]

Yes, and Carrier is wrong there. Many historians in this area aren't Christians and so have no interest in apologetics at all. Even among 'the most fundamentalist Christian' (let's make this something a bit more realistic - something like a reformed evangelical) you'll find the scholars referring to the issues in dating that make a stronger and a weaker case, and presenting the objective evidence for both positions.

My point above was that if you take a broader look than Carrier it's easy to see that Carrier is so heavily influenced by his atheism that he is not being very objective in his analysis of the historicity of the Bible (which would be the overwhelming scholarly view).

Edit: I should add that I think Carrier is worth reading, if only because he is quite entertaining, but he is a particularly poor source on this subject unless you're trying to get a really out there on the edge view (like you'd get from someone like Wells).

[nameandnature]

To be fair to Carrier, we should probably read what he says. He says that N.T. studies is in a poor state, but as far as I can tell, doesn't directly link this to apologetic commitments. In fact, he says more or less the opposite in this comment, namely that there are other historical fields with strong dogmatic commitments which aren't in as bad a shape, and that "a lot of scholars in biblical studies are agnostics and thus hardly dogmatically biased".

Carrier's opinions on historicity needn't affect when he dates the NT documents, I suppose: if something was made up, it could still have been written down early (though I'll be interested to see what his book on the historicity of Jesus does say, and how it's reviewed by other historians). I've not seen Carrier rejecting an early date for 1 Thess, for example (which isn't to say he doesn't).

Mark Goodacre's paper was interesting, but I don't think he's actually contradicting Carrier's whinge about Ignatius: Carrier says that Matthew post-dates 70, which is all that Goodacre seems to say (since Goodacre thinks Mark post-dates 70 and Matthew post-dates Mark). What Carrier is complaining about is that people haven't done enough work to establish an upper bound on the date, which Goodacre doesn't comment on, unless I missed something.

[rysmiel.livejournal.com]

I see some have commented on dating the gospels.

Trust me, it's a lousy idea. They'll never agree on which movie to go see and they'll just want to eat fishburgers again.