Gospel -- thoughts
Jan. 15th, 2009 02:52 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackI 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.
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.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-15 06:03 pm (UTC)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?
no subject
Date: 2009-01-15 06:27 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-15 06:30 pm (UTC)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?
no subject
Date: 2009-01-15 06:35 pm (UTC)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.