| Home > The Bible > composition and character of the Gospel. |
Composition & Character
of the Gospel
Since early Christian history, interpreters have been convinced that that two of these authors used the work of the third as a basic source for constructing their gospels. Papias, bishop of Hieropolis in Asia Minor in the early 2nd c. CE, claimed that he had heard that Matthew wrote first & that this work had been interpreted by others. This report was picked up & without being checked was simply echoed by other early Christian writers as if it were gospel truth. It seemed to make sense, since Matthew was a name that was found on lists of Jesus' disciples in these three gospels, while the names of Mark & Luke were not among known associates of Jesus. Thus, when the New Testament was formed, the gospel of Matthew was put first. Later Christian writers, such as Origen & Augustine, like most modern readers, simply assumed that the gospels were written in the order in which they appear in the New Testament. So, the similarities between the first three gospels were explained as the result of first Mark & then Luke having plagiarized material from Matthew.
By the middle of the 18th c., however, it became evident to some German scholars that this traditional explanation of the evident literary relationship between Matthew, Mark & Luke made it difficult to explain the actual contents of these gospels. For, if Mark was dependent on Matthew, then he simply discarded much of Matthew's information about Jesus -- not just little details, but important large blocks of material such as the stories of Jesus' background & birth, the sermon on the Mount & the resurrection appearances. Moreover, Mark's Greek was less polished than Matthew's & many Markan passages posed more logical & theological difficulties than did parallel sections in Matthew.
These difficulties became more obvious to scholars after 1766, when J. J. Griesbach designed a gospel synopsis in which parallel portions of Matthew, Mark & Luke were printed in adjoining columns. The popularity of Griesbach's work for studying & comparing the texts of Matthew, Mark & Luke led scholars to call these three gospels "the synoptics." Thereafter, the problem of explaining the relationship of the contents of Matthew, Mark & Luke was dubbed: "the synoptic problem."
In 1782 one of Griesbach's former students, J. B. Koppe, published a work that challenged the traditional claim that Mark was a condensation of Matthew's gospel. He pointed out that Mark often differed from Matthew but was often closer to Luke in both wording & narrative sequence. Conversely, Luke's order & wording often had more in common with Mark than Matthew. Since both Mark & Luke agreed at points where they differed from Matthew, Koppe concluded that Matthew was not the primary source of the material common to all three gospels.
Koppe's research convinced even Griesbach that Mark was not simply a shorter version of Matthew. But in order to salvage the traditional view that Matthew was the earliest gospel, Griesbach suggested that Luke first radically revised the material in Matthew & that Mark then wrote a summary of the material on which both Matthew & Luke agreed. This theory kept Matthew first, but inverted the traditional notion of the order of the composition of Mark & Luke.
The direction of further study of the synoptic problem, however, lay with scholars who granted Koppe's argument that Mark was independent of Matthew but still viewed Luke as dependent on Mark. By the beginning of the 19th c. several scholars were suggesting that Mark was the earliest gospel, which was edited by both Matthew & Luke. The fact that Matthew & Luke offered different revisions of Mark indicated that they had worked independently of each other, without knowledge of each other's work. At least it was obvious that each chose not to use the other's revisions of most passages in Mark.
The problem posed by the theory that Mark was the basic source of agreements between Matthew & Luke, however, was how to account for the substantial amount of non-Markan sayings material that was common to the other two synoptics. Since most of these sayings had no equivalent in Mark, Matthew & Luke must have gotten them from some other source. The primary problem with thinking that Luke took these sayings from Matthew was that he almost invariably put these sayings at different points in Mark's narrative outline than Matthew had. But some scholars remembered that Papias had said that the earliest gospel was a compilation of the sayings (logia) of Jesus. This was certainly not a good description of any of the extant synoptic gospels. But it was a perfect description of the type of material that both Matthew & Luke had added to Mark's narrative. Thus, in 1838 C. H. Weisse proposed that Matthew & Luke were based on two documents: Mark & some sayings source (Redenquelle) that was no longer extant as a distinct document. This theory became known as the "Two Document" or "Two Source" hypothesis. In an 1890 essay another German scholar, J. Weiss, designated the document from which Matthew & Luke drew the non-Markan material that they shared "Q" (from the German word for "source": Quelle).
The acceptance of the Two Source hypothesis by most leading synoptic scholars in the 20th c. has made it the basis of most gospel analysis for the past century. But this scholarly consensus has not been unanimous. In 1955 a British scholar, A. M. Farrer, proposed that one could dispense with the Q hypothesis simply by arguing that Luke revised both Mark & Matthew. Then in 1964, an American scholar, W. R. Farmer, revived Griesbach's theory that Mark condensed Matthew & Luke. Today, the updated Griesbach theory -- which has been dubbed "the Two Gospel hypothesis" -- is probably the chief rival to the Two Source hypothesis among American scholars who question the existence of Q. In Europe, however, -- & England in particular -- there are more supporters of Farrer's thesis.
Still, as we enter a new century, some form of the Two Source hypothesis continues to be preferred by an overwhelming majority of critically trained New Testament scholars as the theory that is best able to resolve the synoptic problem. Although the Jesus Seminar did not formally endorse any single theory of the relationship between Matthew, Mark & Luke, the fact that the Two Source hypothesis was presupposed by most Fellows in their own analysis of gospel texts inevitably made it the common frame of reference for most of the Seminar's debate about the sayings & deeds of Jesus.
There are four Gospels included in the Bible-the Gospels according to Mathew, Mark, Luke and John. We come across many inspired sayings of Jesus in these Gospels. The were composed between forty and eighty years after the departure of Jesus on the basis of some earlier documents which are now lost. Biblical scholars have identified some of these earlier documents as
(1) Q (German Quelle = ‘Source’) , a lost document in Aramaic, which reached the writers of the Gospels in a Greek translation,
(2) Urmarcus = Primitive Mark, an earlier draft of Mark’s Gospel written on the basis of Peter’s discourses about Jesus, and
(3) L =a collection of reports about Jesus used only by Luke.
A comparison of the Gospels will show that their authors used these lost documents in a somewhat free manner; they did not even hesitate to change some things contained in them to suit their own purpose.
The first Gospel to be written as that of Mark. It was written at Rome at least forty years after the so-called crucifiction of Jesus. The Gospel as we have it today is considered to be an expanded version of Urmarcus, about which Papias, an early Christian writer, has the following to say:
The elder John use to say, Mark having become Peter’s interpreter, wrote down accuracy whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings of deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied him, but subsequently as I said attached himself to Peter who used to frame his teaching to meet the wants of his hearers, and not as making a connected narrative of the Lord’s discourses. (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Robert and Donaldsons (editors), Vol 1. pp 154, 155).
It is not possible to say whether Urmarcus was expanded and reavised to give us the Gospel of Mark as we have it by Mark himself or by some other person. Dr. C.J. Cadoux, who was Mackennal Professor of Church History at Oxford, thus sums up the conclusions of eminent Biblical scholars regarding the nature and composition of this Gospel :
It was written after Peter’s martyrdom (65 A.D.), and at a time when Mark, who had not himself been a disciple of Jesus, apparently had none of the personal disciples of Jesus within reach by whose knowledge he could check his narrative. These circumstances of its composition account for the existence in it, side by side, of numerous signs of accuracy and a certain number of signs of ignorance and inaccuracy. (The life of Jesus, C.J. Cadoux , Penguin Books, p 13)
The Gospels were composed after the early Christians had become divided into different factions. They were in fact composed to propagate the special teachings of the various schools and their authors showed no hesitations in tampering with the earlier documents and other traditional material regarding the life and teaching of Jesus to bring them in line with the views of their schools. Rev. T.G. Tucker writes :
Thus Gospels were produced which clearly reflected the conception of the practical needs of the community for which they were written. In them the traditional material was used, but there was no hesitation in altering it or making additions to it, or in leaving out what did not suit the writers purpose. (The History of the Christians in the Light of Modern Knowledge, T.G. Tucker, p. 320)
The four Gospels included in the Bible were not the only Gospels written in the early centuries of Christianity. There were many others, including the one called “The Gospel according to the Hebrews”, an Aramaic work which was used by the Nazarenes (as the early disciples of Jesus were called), who denied the divinity of Jesus and regarded him only as a great prophet. Towards the end of the second century the Gospels of Mark, Mathew, Luke and John were included in the Canon and the rest were declared to be heretical or apocryphal by the Church. Before they were canonised and accepted as scriptures, the Gospels did not have that sanctity which they have now and no one felt any compunction in altering them if anything contained in them did not suit his purpose or the purpose of his sect. Even after they were included in the Canon and declared to be the Word of God. Changes continued to be made in them, as is clear form the different early extant manuscripts. Referring to this, Professor Dummelow of Cambridge writes in his famous Commentary on the Bible :
A copyist would sometimes put in not what was in the text , but what he thought ought to be in it. He would trust a fickle memory, or he would make the text accord with the views of the school to which he belonged. In addition to the versions and quotations from the Christian Fathers , nearly four thousand Greek MSS of the New Testament, were known to exist. As a result the variety of reading is considerable. (Commentary on the Holy Bible, J.R. Dummelow, p.16)
In considering how far the four Canonical Gospels faithfully present the inspired message or Gospel of Jesus we must bear the following facts in mind. :
(1) that no written copy was made of the inspired sayings of Jesus in his life time.
(2) That the earliest records of the sayings of Jesus, which were made shortly after the departure of Jesus, when the glorification of Jesus had already begun, have all been irretrievably lost.
(3) That in the Gospels, which were written between 70 and 115 C.E on the basis of some of those lost documents, the material contained in them was handled rather freely, the Gospel-writers feeling no hesitation in changing it for what they considered to be the greater glory of Christ or to bring it in line with the views of their sects
(4) The none of the Evangelists had known Jesus or heard him speaking .
(5) That the Gospels were written in Greek, whereas the language spoken by Jesus was Aramaic
(6) That they were composed to propagate the points of view of the different factions and that they were chosen from many others which represented different view-points.
(7) That for at least a century after they written they had no canonical authority and could be and were actually changed by the copyists of the different sects to serve their own purpose
(8) That the earliest extant manuscripts of the Gospels- Codex Sinaticus, Codex Vaticanus, and Codex Alexandrinus- belong to the fourth and fifth century, and no one knows how much the Gospels had been changed during the centuries of which no manuscript is available.
(9) That there are considerable differences at many places among the various extant manuscript of the fourth and fifth century, and
(10) That the Gospels taken as a whole are full of contradictions.
These facts disclosed by distinguished Western scholars go to show that the Gospel of Jesus, by which we mean the Message which Jesus had received from God, has not reached us in its original form. The four Gospels included in the Bible cannot be considered identical with the inspired Gospel of Jesus. The manner of their composition and the circumstances through which they have passed are such that they cannot be relied upon to give us exact knowledge of what Jesus had said and taught. C. J. Cadoux sums up the position in these words in his book Life of Jesus.
In the four Gospels, therefore, the main documents to which we must go if we are to fill-out at all that bare sketch which we can put together from other sources. We find material of widely-differing quality as regards credibility. So far-reaching is the element of uncertainty that is tampering to ‘down tools’ at once, and to declare the task hopeless. The historical inconsistencies and improbabilities in parts of the Gospels from some of arguments advanced in favour of the Christ-myth theory. These are, however, entirely outweighed-as we have shown-by other considerations. Still, the discrepancies and uncertainties that remain area serious-and consequently many moderns, who have no doubt whatever of Jesus’ real existence, regard as hopeless any attempts to dissolve out the historically-true from the legendary or mythical matter which the Gospels contain, and to reconstruct the story of Jesus’ mission out of the more historical residue. (Life of Jesus, C.J. Cadoux, pp16.17)
Authenticity of the Bible challenged
Prof, Dummelow, of Cambridge in his Commentary on the Holy Bible, a work in the preparation of which forty-two Christian divines and scholars of fame assisted while commenting on the authenticity of the text of the New Testament , says :
A copyist would sometimes put in not what was in the text, but what he thought ought to be in it. He would trust a fickle memory, or he would make the text accord with the views of the school to which he belonged. In addition to the versions and quotations from the Christian Fathers, nearly four thousand Greek MSS of the New Testament were known to exist. As a result the verity of reading is considerable. (Commentary on the Holy Bible,XVI , Dummelow)
Tucker in another place says :
Thus Gospels were produced which clearly reflected the conception of the practical needs of the community for which they were written. In them the traditional material was used, but there no hesitation in altering it or making additions to it, or in leaving out what did not suit the writer’s purpose. An excellent example of such amended Gospel is found in the Gospel of Marcion, which apart from minor changes as the narrative of Luke, with everything omitted that revealed the true humanity of our Lord and his connection with the religion of the Old Testament. (The History of the Christians in the Light of Modern Knowledge, Tucker, p.320)
Wernle says :
The fourth Gospel derived its importance, lasting long beyond the time of his birth, from its having bridged over the chasm between Jesus and Paul, and from its having carried the Pauline Gospel back into the life and teachings of Jesus. It is only through this Gospel that Pauline attained its absolute dominion in the theology of the Church.
And he goes to say :
The significance of the fourth Gospel consists in the fact that it refers the teachings of Paul back to Jesus himself. This constitutes its value and its worthlessness, its forces and its fatality. (The Beginning of Christianity, Wernle, Vol. II, 262)
Dr. Johannes Weiss of Heidelburg University says :
Hence the faith in Christ as held by Paul was something new in comparison with the preachings of Jesus. It was a new religion. (Paul and Jesus, Dr. Johannes Weiss, p 130)
Dr. Wrede says :
The teaching of Jesus is directed entirely to the individual personality. Man is to submit his soul to God and to God’s will wholly and without reserve . . . .The central point for Paul is a divine and supernatural action. He who believes in these divine acts-the incarnation, death and resurrection of a divine being-can obtain salvation. The point which was everything to Paul was nothing to Jesus. (Palaus, Dr. Wrede ,p.6)
The speeches in the fourth Gospel (even apart from the early messianic claim) are so different from those in the Synoptics, and so like the comments of the Fourth Evangelist himself, that both cannot be equally reliable as record of what Jesus said: Literary veracity in ancient times did not forbid, as it does now, the assignment of fictitious speeches to historical characters : the best ancient historians made a practice of composing and assigning such speeches in this way. (The life of Jesus, C.J. Cadoux , p.16)
(ICRA)