Have We Misunderstood the Gospels?
Question - "On the issue of the Bible being divinely inspired, how do we know it wasn't meant to be a story to teach children to be good, and not truly god's word?" - Louis.
Answer - I am going to use your question, Louis, as an opportunity to develop my thoughts on the gospels alone. Trying to tackle the whole Bible is too big a task for one article. Indeed, whole libraries have been written on the subject! So let us narrow our focus to the four biblical gospels.
How can we know that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (collectively referred to as “the Evangelists”) did not intend their gospels to be understood as mere fables? Did the Evangelists want their audiences to get a kick out of an interesting fairy tale, or did they intend to spread the saving truth? At issue here is the genre of the gospels. We want to know if the gospels are of a historical genre (like biography or historiography) or of a fictional genre.
I contend the gospels are of a historical genre. [1] Two question, however, need to be distinguished: (1) "Are the gospels historically reliable?", and (2) "Did the Evangelists intend for the gospels to be historically reliable?" My remarks below are directed at (2), not (1). But first, let me lay my cards out on the table: I am not a scholar. I am a seventeen year old deeply interested in questions of faith and learning, but I do not pretend to have a doctorate in theology. With that caveat in mind, consider three reasons to answer (2) with a resounding, "Yes!".
First, the gospels do not resemble any fictional genre. For example, some argue that the gospels ought to be understood as ancient romance novels. This cannot be, however, because the gospels miss the very core of a romance novel: romance! Or again, some see the gospels as examples of epic novels, based on The Iliad or The Odyssey. This suggestion fairs even worse than the first. Up until the modern era, no one interpreted Mark (the first gospel) as an epic novel - no early Christian, no early Church father, no bishop ever saw in Mark influences from Homer. Indeed, if Mark intended to model his gospel off Greek hero stories, he failed. Moreover, even if the Evangelist patterned his gospel after The Odyssey, how does it follow that he was writing fiction? Literary technique and faithful historical reporting need not exclude one another.
Other scholars argue that the gospels ought to be categorized as midrash, ancient Jewish commentary on the Old Testament. Besides explicit commentary, sometimes midrash involved reinterpreting the Scriptures and applying them to modern situations – allegory, for short. In this vein, some see the gospels as products of Old Testament allegory. As provocative as this suggestion might be, midrash always involved finding obscure passages in the Old Testament and giving them new interpretations in light of historical events. It never, however, involved the reverse: making up historical events to fit the Scriptures. The Scriptures were malleable; history was absolute.
Finally, what about your proposal that the gospels might be children's fables (meant to teach a moral lesson, perhaps, but not to start a new religion)? [2] Well, it's a pretty bad proposal. The Jesus who tells us to love our neighbor as our self (Matthew 22:39) also tells us that the teachers of religious law "don't practice what they teach. They crush people with unbearable religious demands and never lift a finger to ease the burden" (Matthew 23:3b-4). Passages like these reveal Jesus to be far more than a vehicle for quaint lessons in moral behavior. He denounces the religious institutions of first century Palestine, calling people not to focus on outward appearances of religious piety, but to strive to live a righteous life before God.
In addition, Jesus' teaching that no man can find salvation on his own does not fit well with the genre of moral fable. According to the gospels, Jesus shocked his disciples with the proclamation that "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of Heaven" (Matthew 19:24). Upon hearing this, "the disciples were astounded. 'Then who in the world can be saved?' they asked. Jesus looked at them intently and said, 'Humanly speaking, it is impossible. But with God everything is possible'" (Matthew 19:25-26). Really, Jesus taught not so much how to be moral but rather that we can never truly be moral! The fable genre misses the whole point of Jesus' life and teaching: that only God can give what man so desperately needs.
In sum, there is no fictional genre that does justice to the gospels. [3]
Second, the gospels indicate an intentional concern with history. John's gospel ends with this summation: "Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name" (John 20: 30-31, NIV). The clear inference here is that John wrote to bring saving life to his audience, a life that has its foundation in the historical events of Jesus' own life. Whereas John ends with a statement of purpose, Luke begins with the following prestigious statement:
Moreover, Luke in particular takes pains to connect his narrative to known facts. He writes that Jesus was born in "the time of Herod king of Judea" (1:5, NIV), and that "in those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world" (2:1, NIV) Specifically, the relevant census "took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria" (2:2, NIV). These political events, mentioned in the same breath as events in Jesus' life, are another clue that Luke intended his audience to understand Jesus - his life, death, and resurrection - in the same way they understood the reign of Herod or the census under Augustus; that is to say, as history. [5]
Third, early Christian followers of Jesus were persecuted and killed for their faith. Their willingness to die makes no sense if they knew the foundation of that faith was a made-up story of a make-believe man. During the reign of Nero specifically (about thirty years after the death of Christ), Christians underwent severe persecution. One historian provides the following stark account:
For these three reasons, the gospels ought to be categorized under some historical genre – ancient biography, historiography, or something of that sort. Indeed, Roberts reports that "recent scholarship on the New Testament gospels has tended to recognize how much they are a kind of...Hellenistic biography" [8], so I think my conclusion rests comfortably in the mainstream of New Testament scholarship. And really, Louis, I think I have been too fair to advocates of the “gospels-as-fiction” thesis. Is it really reasonable to suppose that the world’s largest religion, the very foundation of Western civilization, arose from a few documents that were originally meant merely to entertain? We need to be reasonable here, and I submit that for this reason alone, the gospel-fiction thesis is not reasonable.
[1] The below discussion is summarized from: Boyd, Gregory, and Paul Eddy, The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 309-361. As I say, I am not a scholar, but I try to stand on the shoulders of scholars and present their work in new ways.
[2] The following two paragraphs are integrated from discussion in the comments section below.
[3] There are, of course, other fictional genres that have been thought to apply to the gospels: aretologies, peshar, comedies, and even ancient jokes. While I will not respond to these particular genres, the above material gives us enough, I think, to conclude that trying to fit the gospels into any particular fictional mold is bound to fail.
[4] Roberts, Mark, Can We Trust the Gospels?: Investigating the Reliability of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2007), 84.
[5] To be fair, some scholars see the census mentioned by Luke as a historical blunder on his part because (1) Quirinius was not governor of Syria when Herod was in power (Herod died around 4 BC, whereas Quirinius ruled Syria From 6-7 AD), and (2) it is doubtful that Rome ever carried out an empire-wide census before 7 AD.
With respect to (1), New Testament scholar Craig Blomberg (The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, [Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2007], 248-249) points out that records indicate Quirinius held some sort of government position in the eastern provinces around 4 BC, and this well could be all Luke means by "governor" (which really just means "to rule" or "to lead").
Regarding (2), Blomberg again points out that evidence suggests Rome began taking empire-wide censuses before 6-7 AD. If Rome took a census every 14 years, which we know they did in Egypt, this puts the prior census at around 8-9 BC. Given the lack of cars in the ancient world, such an undertaking could naturally have taken two to three years. In short, every historical event "dovetails" (p. 248), giving us a fairly clear chronology of Christ's birth.
[6] Gombrich, E. H., A Little History of the World (Cologne: DuMont Literatur und Kunst Verlag GmbH und Co., 2005), 95.
[7] The Jesus Legend, 342.
[8] Can We Trust the Gospels?, 85.
Answer - I am going to use your question, Louis, as an opportunity to develop my thoughts on the gospels alone. Trying to tackle the whole Bible is too big a task for one article. Indeed, whole libraries have been written on the subject! So let us narrow our focus to the four biblical gospels.
How can we know that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (collectively referred to as “the Evangelists”) did not intend their gospels to be understood as mere fables? Did the Evangelists want their audiences to get a kick out of an interesting fairy tale, or did they intend to spread the saving truth? At issue here is the genre of the gospels. We want to know if the gospels are of a historical genre (like biography or historiography) or of a fictional genre.
I contend the gospels are of a historical genre. [1] Two question, however, need to be distinguished: (1) "Are the gospels historically reliable?", and (2) "Did the Evangelists intend for the gospels to be historically reliable?" My remarks below are directed at (2), not (1). But first, let me lay my cards out on the table: I am not a scholar. I am a seventeen year old deeply interested in questions of faith and learning, but I do not pretend to have a doctorate in theology. With that caveat in mind, consider three reasons to answer (2) with a resounding, "Yes!".
First, the gospels do not resemble any fictional genre. For example, some argue that the gospels ought to be understood as ancient romance novels. This cannot be, however, because the gospels miss the very core of a romance novel: romance! Or again, some see the gospels as examples of epic novels, based on The Iliad or The Odyssey. This suggestion fairs even worse than the first. Up until the modern era, no one interpreted Mark (the first gospel) as an epic novel - no early Christian, no early Church father, no bishop ever saw in Mark influences from Homer. Indeed, if Mark intended to model his gospel off Greek hero stories, he failed. Moreover, even if the Evangelist patterned his gospel after The Odyssey, how does it follow that he was writing fiction? Literary technique and faithful historical reporting need not exclude one another.
Other scholars argue that the gospels ought to be categorized as midrash, ancient Jewish commentary on the Old Testament. Besides explicit commentary, sometimes midrash involved reinterpreting the Scriptures and applying them to modern situations – allegory, for short. In this vein, some see the gospels as products of Old Testament allegory. As provocative as this suggestion might be, midrash always involved finding obscure passages in the Old Testament and giving them new interpretations in light of historical events. It never, however, involved the reverse: making up historical events to fit the Scriptures. The Scriptures were malleable; history was absolute.
Finally, what about your proposal that the gospels might be children's fables (meant to teach a moral lesson, perhaps, but not to start a new religion)? [2] Well, it's a pretty bad proposal. The Jesus who tells us to love our neighbor as our self (Matthew 22:39) also tells us that the teachers of religious law "don't practice what they teach. They crush people with unbearable religious demands and never lift a finger to ease the burden" (Matthew 23:3b-4). Passages like these reveal Jesus to be far more than a vehicle for quaint lessons in moral behavior. He denounces the religious institutions of first century Palestine, calling people not to focus on outward appearances of religious piety, but to strive to live a righteous life before God.
In addition, Jesus' teaching that no man can find salvation on his own does not fit well with the genre of moral fable. According to the gospels, Jesus shocked his disciples with the proclamation that "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of Heaven" (Matthew 19:24). Upon hearing this, "the disciples were astounded. 'Then who in the world can be saved?' they asked. Jesus looked at them intently and said, 'Humanly speaking, it is impossible. But with God everything is possible'" (Matthew 19:25-26). Really, Jesus taught not so much how to be moral but rather that we can never truly be moral! The fable genre misses the whole point of Jesus' life and teaching: that only God can give what man so desperately needs.
In sum, there is no fictional genre that does justice to the gospels. [3]
Second, the gospels indicate an intentional concern with history. John's gospel ends with this summation: "Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name" (John 20: 30-31, NIV). The clear inference here is that John wrote to bring saving life to his audience, a life that has its foundation in the historical events of Jesus' own life. Whereas John ends with a statement of purpose, Luke begins with the following prestigious statement:
Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. (Luke 1: 1-4, NIV).Scholars have long noted the formality of the above verses, how the grammar therein approaches classical Greek, and how much Luke's preface, in the words of New Testament historian Mark Roberts, "resembles the sort of thing we would find in the history writing of Luke's day" [4]. These verses serve as a genre cue, cluing the reader into the intentions of the author. In light of these genre cues, the Evangelists appear, at least, to want their works to be seen as historical records.
Moreover, Luke in particular takes pains to connect his narrative to known facts. He writes that Jesus was born in "the time of Herod king of Judea" (1:5, NIV), and that "in those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world" (2:1, NIV) Specifically, the relevant census "took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria" (2:2, NIV). These political events, mentioned in the same breath as events in Jesus' life, are another clue that Luke intended his audience to understand Jesus - his life, death, and resurrection - in the same way they understood the reign of Herod or the census under Augustus; that is to say, as history. [5]
Third, early Christian followers of Jesus were persecuted and killed for their faith. Their willingness to die makes no sense if they knew the foundation of that faith was a made-up story of a make-believe man. During the reign of Nero specifically (about thirty years after the death of Christ), Christians underwent severe persecution. One historian provides the following stark account:
Nero had them arrested wherever they found them and they were brutally put to death. Some were torn to pieces by wild beasts in the arena, while others were burnt alive as torches at a grand nocturnal banquet in his garden. But the Christians bore all these tortures and those of later persecutions with unbelievable courage. [6]In light of this, Paul Eddy and Gregory Boyd pointedly ask, “What exactly did the early Christians preach and put their lives on the line for – if they were aware that the Gospel they proclaimed and ‘believed’ was largely, if not totally, based in [fiction]?” [7]. Surely someone would have stood up and said, "Wow, wow, wow! Guys, you've misunderstood. This Jesus guy was just a good story! No one needs to die for him!" Yet no such thing ever happened. Instead, hundreds of Christians went to their deaths proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ. To them, that gospel was not an inspiring story, but rather the truth that gave meaning, value, and purpose to their lives.
For these three reasons, the gospels ought to be categorized under some historical genre – ancient biography, historiography, or something of that sort. Indeed, Roberts reports that "recent scholarship on the New Testament gospels has tended to recognize how much they are a kind of...Hellenistic biography" [8], so I think my conclusion rests comfortably in the mainstream of New Testament scholarship. And really, Louis, I think I have been too fair to advocates of the “gospels-as-fiction” thesis. Is it really reasonable to suppose that the world’s largest religion, the very foundation of Western civilization, arose from a few documents that were originally meant merely to entertain? We need to be reasonable here, and I submit that for this reason alone, the gospel-fiction thesis is not reasonable.
Notes
[1] The below discussion is summarized from: Boyd, Gregory, and Paul Eddy, The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 309-361. As I say, I am not a scholar, but I try to stand on the shoulders of scholars and present their work in new ways.
[3] There are, of course, other fictional genres that have been thought to apply to the gospels: aretologies, peshar, comedies, and even ancient jokes. While I will not respond to these particular genres, the above material gives us enough, I think, to conclude that trying to fit the gospels into any particular fictional mold is bound to fail.
[4] Roberts, Mark, Can We Trust the Gospels?: Investigating the Reliability of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2007), 84.
[5] To be fair, some scholars see the census mentioned by Luke as a historical blunder on his part because (1) Quirinius was not governor of Syria when Herod was in power (Herod died around 4 BC, whereas Quirinius ruled Syria From 6-7 AD), and (2) it is doubtful that Rome ever carried out an empire-wide census before 7 AD.
With respect to (1), New Testament scholar Craig Blomberg (The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, [Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2007], 248-249) points out that records indicate Quirinius held some sort of government position in the eastern provinces around 4 BC, and this well could be all Luke means by "governor" (which really just means "to rule" or "to lead").
Regarding (2), Blomberg again points out that evidence suggests Rome began taking empire-wide censuses before 6-7 AD. If Rome took a census every 14 years, which we know they did in Egypt, this puts the prior census at around 8-9 BC. Given the lack of cars in the ancient world, such an undertaking could naturally have taken two to three years. In short, every historical event "dovetails" (p. 248), giving us a fairly clear chronology of Christ's birth.
[6] Gombrich, E. H., A Little History of the World (Cologne: DuMont Literatur und Kunst Verlag GmbH und Co., 2005), 95.
[7] The Jesus Legend, 342.
[8] Can We Trust the Gospels?, 85.
Miles, I enjoyed this. Good move to focus on the writers' *intention* rather than whether the gospels represent historical fact (a much more complicated question than can be treated in a short blog post).
ReplyDeleteI have to say, though, that when I read the question from your friend, my mind took off in a completely different direction. If you step away from what, say, a children's Sunday school lesson *says* the gospels say and look at what they actually say, in historical context, it's pretty clear that they are anything but stories intended for children. They are radical, often harsh, and deeply challenging to the status quo. Still are, for that matter. Once you realize that Jesus was challenging the Church of the time and his fellow believers (and to a lesser extent, the secular authorities as well), it becomes clear that it's hardly a children's morality tale and is probably no less challenging to the church today than it was at the time.
Eric
I appreciate your remarks, Eric. You rightly address Louis's direct claim that the gospels might be nothing more than a child's story (they were meant to teach a moral lesson, perhaps, but not to start a new religion). Seen in this light, the gospels are really no different from Aesop's Fables. But as you rightly point out, the gospels are far, far more than stories intended for children. The Jesus who tells us to love our neighbors as ourselves (Matthew 22:39) also tells us that the teachers of religious law "don't practice what they teach. They crush people with unbearable religious demands and never lift a finger to ease the burden" (Matthew 23:3b-4). Passages like these reveal Jesus to be more than a vehicle for quaint lessons in moral behavior; he denounces the religious institutions of first century Palestine, calling people not to focus on outward appearances of religious piety, but to strive to live a righteous life before God.
DeleteMoreover, Jesus' teaching that no man can find salvation on his own does not fit well with the genre of moral fable. According to the gospels, Jesus shocked his disciples with the proclamation that "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of Heaven" (Matthew 19:24). Upon hearing this, "the disciples were astounded. 'Then who in the world can be saved?' they asked. Jesus looked at them intently and said, 'Humanly speaking, it is impossible. But with God everything is possible'" (Matthew 19:25-26). Really, Jesus taught not so much how to be moral but that we can never truly be moral! The gospels-as-fable thesis misses the whole point of Jesus' life and teaching: that only God can give what man so desperately needs.
Hear, hear!
ReplyDeleteI'm a big fan of actually reading the bible :). I read it cover to cover a couple times years ago ... really want to do it again.
Even for the most committed Muslim, Buddhist, and atheist, reading the Bible had value. It is one of the most, if not the most, influential text(s) in Western civilization. More importantly, you don't need to be a Christian to benefit from Jesus' ethical teachings. I read the whole Bible a few years back as well. I'm currently three-fourths through round two.
ReplyDeleteVery cool exercise, Miles. Looking forward to the next one.
ReplyDeletePerhaps one day we'll have a chance to discuss the Bible in more detail as well. There aren't a lot of people around anymore who are willing to actually read it through and wrestle with it all.
The argument against the idea of the of the gospels as romance is just a misunderstanding. Obviously, the gospels don't contain a significant degree of "romance' in the colloquial sense, but in so far as we're talking about a literary genre, romanticism carries a different meaning. Namely, literary romanticism focuses on adventure and authentic human experience.
ReplyDelete