Theme 1 part 1

Theme 1 part 1

1. What is a Gospel?

   • A gospel is not a history, nor is it a biography. It means ‘good news’ ie the good news that in Jesus, the promised Messiah has come, and in his life, death and resurrection has come salvation- forgiveness of sins, restored relationships between mankind and God and the promise of external life.
     • Purpose of the Gospels
       • Why write a gospel? Was it just to record Jesus’ life story? Yes, but not just that. They decided what parts to mention. Redaction Criticism argued that this means we can see the mind of the authors behind the text, i.e the Gospels accounts tell us not just about Jesus, but also • About Mathew and Luke and what their thinking was • What they thought and Jesus, and • What was happening among the early Christian (Early Church) that Mathew and Luke wanted to give guidance on. So, if the Gospels are not simply “the story of Jesus”, but “what Mathew and Luke want us to now about Jesus”, then what is it they want us to know?The answer to that, in brief, is • His true identity • His purpose
         • 1. Identity A historical identity • A true Jew • A member of the whole human race • A descendent of the royal line of King David • The Messiah/Christ, the promised “ anointed one.” Sent by God. • The fulfilment of prophecy • The Saviour His nature • Fully human • Fully divine • The incarnation/ God in human flesh
           • 2) His Purpose- as Saviour, for which he had to be both human and divine. How can Jesus be both God and Man? This is the most important climax of the Gospel’s claims about Jesus. He is not just God, totally different to us. Nor is he just man, so like us that he shares all our flaws and failings. However, there have been several ways that the Incarnation have been understood…
             • (i) The ‘Substantial Presence”: This understanding of the Incarnation si the traditional/ concervatice one, adopted by the mainstream Church. It emphasises that Jesus was not a human inhabited or possessed by Gpd, but that he was by very nature, God (in the flesh). The church has never found a way to adequately explain how this works, its unique, so there’s nothing to compare it with. But it has made statements to try to get as close as possible, eg. In the Nicene Creed (4th Century AD). “…. One Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of the Farther before all worls, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten not made, being of one substance with the Farther, by whom all things were made….”
               • So, Jesus was fully God, from the outset. And yet he was also fully Man. (The point- so he could represent Man on the cross, dying in mankind’s place to pay for their sin, taking the punishment upon himself; but also God, so that he could live the sinless life, otherwise he would be paying for his own sin-the doctrine of the Atonement (brining back together). (ii) The Kenotic Model: This understanding of the incarnation has Jesus as a human being who comes the God-Man by ‘emptying himself’ to the divine will so that he allowed God to be fully present within himself. Supporters of this version would point to Jesus’ Baptism( Jesus goes to Jordan- the river. However, it does seem to bypass much that is in the birth stories.

2. So, this is what we should expect: not a blow by blow account of Jesus life but a focus on those element of his story that contribute best to the ‘good new’. Theological concepts Theological- ideas about God Theo= God (Greek) Logo= Words/ideas (Greek)

3. The Birth of Jesus: Comparing the Gospels Infancy Narratives: Introduction to Mathew and Luke 1-2.

   • The birth of Jesus is narrated at the beginning of the Gosepl of Mathew and the Gospel of Luke, but is not ,mentioned in Mark, and alluded to very differently in John. Although, the story may seem familiar , a close analysis shows that there are many significant differences between the Matthean and Lukan accounts, with hardly anything in common between them. The following are the only commonalities, and even these contain signicant differences in the details.
   • Common elements in both infancy narratives:
     • 1. Main characters: Mary, Joseph, Jesus 2. Supporting characters: Angels, Holy Spirit 3. Titles attributed to Jesus: Christ, Son of David 4. Heritage: children of Abraham.Israel, house of David. 5. Place names: Nazereth in Galilee, Bethlehem in Judea. 6. Historical period: during the reign of King Herod.
   • Unique features in Mathew
     • 1. Mathew writes from Josephs viewpoint 2. His chronology is simple ‘ in the days of Herod the King’. 3. Joseph resolves to divorce Mary (1:19) 4. He refers to their marriage (1:24) 5. An angel visits joseph 6. Wise men from the East follow a star (2:1-12) 7. In Bethlehem the family are in a house (2:11) 8. The family escapes to Egypt (2:13-15) 9. Herod slaughters the male children (2:16-18) 10. Emphathsis on fulfilled OT prophecies (1:22-23;2:5-6,15,17-18, 23)
   • Unique features in Luke
     • 1. Luke writes from Marys viewpoint 2. He gives a focused chronology, eg ‘When Quirinius was governor of Syria’ (2:2). 3. Mary and Joseph are betrothed (1:27,2:5) 4. The angel Gabriel visits Mary (1:26-38) 5. Mary’s song of praise (the Magnificat) (1:46-55) 6. Visit to Elizabeth, birth of John the Baptist (1:39-64) 7. Angels visit the shepherds (2:8-21) 8. Mary and Joseph take jesus to the temple, where Simeaon and Anna recongisse him as the Messiah (2:22-38).

4. Biblical Criticism

   • : In times past, the Gospels were taken at face value. However, in the modern age, biblical scholars and theologians have been more willing to use ‘criticism’ as a way of analysing the text and gaining a better understanding of it (and of the situation in which the author was writing). At the end of the 18th Century, the German biblical scholars, Johann Griesbach asked “How can the Gospels have so many things in common, yet on the other hand, have so many disagreements?”
     • Biblical criticism tries to look for clues as to how the Gospels got put together, to get an answer to that question. Source criticism scholars have tried to analyse what earlier sources, oral or written, might have been used by the Gosepel writers (eg. Oral sources, such as the recollections of Mary’s family for Luke, or Joseph’s family for Mathew; written sources, such as Mark’s Gospel, from which Mathew and Luke appear to have used large chunks and redaction criticism.
   • Redaction Criticism
     • Redaction means editing. It is a way of analysing the Gospels to see what is the theological emphasis of the writer, eg what does he include, what doe she miss out, what does he keep repeating or drawing our attention to. This is not, necessarily, to say that what they wrote is not accurate, but that they have edited their accounts to make the points they consider most important for understanding who Jesus was and why he had come. So, Hans Conzelmann (“The theology of luke” 1960) says that Luke is not an historian, he is a theologian, ie his prime concern is not to put together a chronological sequence of events, but to explain, theologically, what it all means.
       • This redaction process gives a big hint as to why Mathew’s and Luke’s Gosels have differences. They have ‘editied’ things in or out in order to make the point that they consider most important. So, a redaction approach will point out how Mathew was aiming his Gospel and Jewish readers. He tells the story from Joseph’s viewpoint. He is at pains to emphasise Jesus connection, through Josepeh, to King David, and that he fulfils a selection of Old Testaments prophecies linked to the promised Messiah. However, he is convinced that Jesus had come for all mankind not just the jews and he emphasises this with the coming of the wirse men from the East. A redaction approach will point out that Luke was aiming as a Greek/Gentile audience. He makes far less reference to the Old Testament, and when he does it is to the Greek translation (the Septuagint or LXX). He writes from Mary’s view point; in fact he constantly shows sympathy for the marginalised in that society, the women, the poor, his emp
         • Not everyone is a fan of redaction criticism: • Is it making too much of what is a natural process in any written text? • Do we over-emphasise it, trying to see the theological meaning in every little change or omission. When it could just be for the sake of brevity, style or what was in the particular source the writer was using. • Some are concerned that it can be misunderstood or taken too far, implying that the accounts have little actual accuracy, have been tampered with too much and are no more than theological concoctions to make a point or emphasise a set of beliefs.

5. The Birth Narratives of Mathew and Luke.- Dating of the Gospels

   • In general, it makes sense that the Gospels were written within the 1st Century AD. Information was available, especially through eye-witnesses to Jesus’ life. It was as that generation began to die out that there would have been a need to get those memories written down before they were lost. The death of these first generation Christians accelerated in the 60’s and 70’s AD, as persecution began. It seems likely that Mark was written in that decade later; many scholars would put Mathew at about 80 AD or later. Although some, such as John Robinson (“Re-dating the New Testament”) argues that the whole New Testament must have been written before the Fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD.
     • are the accounts historically reliable?
       • Here we can’t be certain of some of the details. For example, Luke tells us about a census taking place when Quirinius was governor of Syria. There is no record of this specific census during his time as governor. But then in the ancient world there are lots of things we have not found records for. So much has been lost- and much that night not have had the fine-tuned chronological accuracy we expect today. Apart from Luke we can’t find that this specific census happened, but we also have nothing saying it didn’t; but we do know such censuses did happen from time to time.
         • Herod the Great’s death was in about 4 BC. But our chronology (BC/AD) was worked out in the Middle Ages and w eknow it is deeply flawed. The Gospel accounts do not give dates (that wasn’t how it worked in those times\), they just refered to events and important people- what it adds up to is Jesus was born in around about 5BC! Outside of Mathew there isn’t any record of Herod’s slaughter of the children, but why would there be ? it was a violent time in a land under military occupation and children in poor town where not important. But the whole episodes fits we know of Herod. He was deeply paranoid man, who already murdered numerous perceived threats to his throne- including most of his own family.
           • Of course, Luke being Greeks adopts a historical style. He references people and events in the Roman Empire. And this is a key different between the Goisepls and the pagan myths. Myths are generally set in a vague time in the distant past, in an age of heroes. Luke anchors his story in real history, the near past, rather than hiding it in the musts of time where no one can check it out. He appears to be very confident of his story and his sources.

6. How credible are the birth narratives?

   • can we take them as ‘accounts’ or ‘myths’. Some scholars have suggested that the birth stores were not part of the original accounts of Jesus’ life. Their contention is that they were added last, in order to answer the question about his origins and identity, to complete the story; put together as more theology that history- this would be an example of Redaction Criticism, trying to judge the content of the story by the editorial choice of the writers. They also suggest that the stories contain similarities to pagan myths, well-known in the ancient world which had been largely Hellenisded by Greek culture; stories of heroes born from a god visiting a human woman (eg Zeus begetting Hercules), or stars as signs of a heroes birth; maybe the Gospels need to be ‘demytholgised’ ie, we need to strip away the ‘mythical’ elements to find the pure teachings of Jesus Beneath. However, it is likely that the evangelists (Gospel writers) would have used pagan myths and attached them to Jesus?
     • The Greek and Persian myths are quite fantastical, whereas the Jesus birth stories are very theologically focused, specifically showing Jesus’ Messianic identity and the Incarnation rather than miraculous happenings just for dramatic effect (even the central idea of the virgin birth is very restrained, and annoucnemnt by the angel, then an unseen act of creation within Mary’s womb. And would Mathew (whose writing clearly shows a man steeped in Judaism, resort to using pagan storylines? He is at pains to show the jewishness of these events, in line with prophecies from the Old Testament. Is it so strange that the birth stories might have been the last bit added to Jesus story? His death was a public event; his teachings were heard by thousands. His birth would have been more private and so not as widely known, so anyone wanting to find out about it would have had to make an effort, maybe asking members of the family.
       • Which is just what we see in the Gosepsl, where Mathew appears to have been talking to Joseph’s sides of the family and Luke to Mary’s side. And if mark, the earliest of the Gospels, is, as many scholars think, the memoirs of Peter, then Jesus’ birth would be absent as it would not be part of Peter’s memories.