A coherent picture resulting from the Gospel accounts
Yes. Believe it or not... it is possible. Actually don't "not" believe it. If you do (or don't?) then you are just wrong. So stop it. Or do it. I forget.
Moving on.
One of the "drums" my extremely liberal professor Boyer was banging away at this past intercession course was that there is no way to generalize about an event or teaching of Christ from the pages of Scripture. We can, according to Boyer, only say with any certainty what Mark says about Jesus doing _____ or how John characterizes Jesus during ______. Each account exists isolated from each other; it would be foolish to attempt to reconcile these accounts into one coherent account of the life and teachings and death and resurrection of Jesus... as... "Then you would be creating a gospel that is unlike ANY of the four canonical Gospels: a gospel that does not even exist!!"
Right. I call shenanigans.
It sounds profound, after all. I mean, if I were to take clips from various films or television episodes... and attempt to edit them together into one story line... I would not have anything resembling the original... rather I would have some strange concoction of Top Gun/Back to the Future/Batman Forever/The Naked Gun/Monsters Inc/Tin Man... right??? The end result of the edit would be essentially a film freak... not fitting into any of the categories of films we started with. The end result of the piecing together project would be a NEW story that the films themselves, in their contexts, never attempted to tell. Any attempt to splice them together would be to rape them from their historical and meaningful and artistic contexts.... RIGHT????
I would put to you, this is the summary of the argument Boyer presented in class concerning ANY (and I do mean ANY) attempt to harmonize the material presented in the four canonical Gospels to arrive at any coherent look at the Gospel accounts. Pardon me while I throw up... the argument is severely flawed at its core. The film example he briefly alluded to (and which I have faithfully, i would argue, expanded on) presupposes that the gospel accounts are of completely different events and story lines. Top Gun has little in common with Back to the Future (aside from the fact they both were made in the mid 80s), and even less in common with Tin Man and Batman Forever!! Each film is looking at its own fictional story to entertain the audience, completely separate from one another. And therein lies the error.
The film example uses distinctly different fictional stories and a hack job to attempt to make a brand new story from various pieces. However, NO ONE would suggest this is the case when reading or watching the daily news. When reading about an event - historical or current - it is often helpful to gain multiple perspectives on the news piece at hand. Multiple papers may show a wide array of opinions and perspectives on a single issue or occurrence. Fox News will include details of a story that are not to be found on CNN... and the BBC or The Telegraph (a British news outlet) are likely to include perspectives on a single story rarely spelled out clearly in an American newspaper.
I think you see my point, but I will put it to you another way. I just hope this example is not too crass.
Some of us can probably recount the various camera angles on the World Trade Center crashes on 9/11 by heart. Different media outlets got a different perspective on the plane crashes. See bellow (disturbing images)
Now I ask you... is there something particularly wrong or DRASTICALLY INSANE about piecing this footage together to show the unfolding of events on 9/11? True... camera A did not see things camera B was able to include. Does this mean that camera B made things up that A did not know about? This is a stupid question. The answer is clearly no. Additionally, you probably know the majority of footage we have of the first plane crash that occurred is not from the major news sources but from independent amateur footage. What of this then? Using Boyer's (and other liberals') logic... we can not POSSIBLY string together the amateur footage with the footage from Fox News of the second plane crash to arrive at a clearer and truthful look at what happened on 9/11, CAN WE??? After all... Fox News Channel MUST have been meaning to tell the ENTIRE story of 9/11 with their cameras from their perspective, as if it is the only perspective to see the footage from. Or... is this not the case?
If we are to be HYPER-critical of harmonization of the Gospel accounts to give us a clear and concise record of the life, teaching, death, and resurrection of Christ, then we MUST be consistent and be HYPER-critical of ANY attempt ANYWHERE to harmonize an account of an event or teaching. Just as the liberal Boyer wants to look at the crucifixion of Christ, and come away from it claiming any form of harmonization does damage to the artistic and cultural context in which the story was composed and told... so we would HAVE to look at different footage from 9/11 and resist putting together that footage to understand what happened that fateful day.
I am unaware of CNN's cameras claiming to provide the entirity of angles when it comes to a given news story. I am not familiar with Fox News' declaration that every camera angle it provides DEFINITIVELY tells each and EVERY story to the fullest, with NOTHING left to uncover from any other possible camera angles on a given story. Similarly, Matthew does not claim to pen the FINAL WORD on the teaching. life, death, and resurrection of Christ. Luke does not claim for itself that ONLY what is recorded in the pages of his Gospel is what actually happened during Jesus' ministry and mission to redeem a lost people. Quite the contrary. Even John wrote in John 21 that Jesus did MANY OTHER things that are not recorded in this particular book. No gospel is comprehensive in and of itself on the life and death and resurrection of Christ!! No gospel even claims this for itself.
Despite what the liberals want you to think/believe... the Gospel accounts CAN be reconciled with each other. One CAN look at the three "options" for Jesus' final words and come up with a definitive last phrase by Christ: "It is finished," as described by John. (For more on this, see below)* Coming so this conclusion is fairly simple once we understand that each of the gospel writers had a unique vantage point of the events which unfolded. Though the vantage points, or camera angles, differed slightly, there is plenty of evidence to piece the different points in such a way that a fairly clear and accurate depiction of Jesus is carefully edited together to give a clear picture of the historical reality of what occurred, as recorded in the New Testament. Historical documents and records are often needed to be harmonized to show a complete picture of what happened, as no single account claims to be the final say on said event. If we are willing to be wisely charitable with other ancient and modern historical accounts... there is absolutely NO reason to not apply this method of harmonization to another ancient document - The Holy Bible.
Of course... seeing as the Bible is literally God's breathed-out Word... this gives even more reason to have trust in the reliability of the documents and in harmonization. But I suppose that is a slightly separate (though indeed important) issue.
*The last words of Jesus recorded by Matthew and Mark are "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" This is not to be understood as Jesus' last words, but they are the last words that these two gospel writers, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, recorded. Mark, for instance, also records that "Jesus uttered a loud cry and breathed his last" (15:37). Luke, then, gives the reader WHAT that loud cry was. "Then Jesus, calling out with a loud voice, said, 'Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!'" Again... Jesus then, having said this, breaths his last. So what was uttered with his final breath? "It is finished." After this, Jesus bows his head and gives up his spirit, for he is now actually dead, having accomplished redemption.
Moving on.
One of the "drums" my extremely liberal professor Boyer was banging away at this past intercession course was that there is no way to generalize about an event or teaching of Christ from the pages of Scripture. We can, according to Boyer, only say with any certainty what Mark says about Jesus doing _____ or how John characterizes Jesus during ______. Each account exists isolated from each other; it would be foolish to attempt to reconcile these accounts into one coherent account of the life and teachings and death and resurrection of Jesus... as... "Then you would be creating a gospel that is unlike ANY of the four canonical Gospels: a gospel that does not even exist!!"
Right. I call shenanigans.
It sounds profound, after all. I mean, if I were to take clips from various films or television episodes... and attempt to edit them together into one story line... I would not have anything resembling the original... rather I would have some strange concoction of Top Gun/Back to the Future/Batman Forever/The Naked Gun/Monsters Inc/Tin Man... right??? The end result of the edit would be essentially a film freak... not fitting into any of the categories of films we started with. The end result of the piecing together project would be a NEW story that the films themselves, in their contexts, never attempted to tell. Any attempt to splice them together would be to rape them from their historical and meaningful and artistic contexts.... RIGHT????
I would put to you, this is the summary of the argument Boyer presented in class concerning ANY (and I do mean ANY) attempt to harmonize the material presented in the four canonical Gospels to arrive at any coherent look at the Gospel accounts. Pardon me while I throw up... the argument is severely flawed at its core. The film example he briefly alluded to (and which I have faithfully, i would argue, expanded on) presupposes that the gospel accounts are of completely different events and story lines. Top Gun has little in common with Back to the Future (aside from the fact they both were made in the mid 80s), and even less in common with Tin Man and Batman Forever!! Each film is looking at its own fictional story to entertain the audience, completely separate from one another. And therein lies the error.
The film example uses distinctly different fictional stories and a hack job to attempt to make a brand new story from various pieces. However, NO ONE would suggest this is the case when reading or watching the daily news. When reading about an event - historical or current - it is often helpful to gain multiple perspectives on the news piece at hand. Multiple papers may show a wide array of opinions and perspectives on a single issue or occurrence. Fox News will include details of a story that are not to be found on CNN... and the BBC or The Telegraph (a British news outlet) are likely to include perspectives on a single story rarely spelled out clearly in an American newspaper.
I think you see my point, but I will put it to you another way. I just hope this example is not too crass.
Some of us can probably recount the various camera angles on the World Trade Center crashes on 9/11 by heart. Different media outlets got a different perspective on the plane crashes. See bellow (disturbing images)
Now I ask you... is there something particularly wrong or DRASTICALLY INSANE about piecing this footage together to show the unfolding of events on 9/11? True... camera A did not see things camera B was able to include. Does this mean that camera B made things up that A did not know about? This is a stupid question. The answer is clearly no. Additionally, you probably know the majority of footage we have of the first plane crash that occurred is not from the major news sources but from independent amateur footage. What of this then? Using Boyer's (and other liberals') logic... we can not POSSIBLY string together the amateur footage with the footage from Fox News of the second plane crash to arrive at a clearer and truthful look at what happened on 9/11, CAN WE??? After all... Fox News Channel MUST have been meaning to tell the ENTIRE story of 9/11 with their cameras from their perspective, as if it is the only perspective to see the footage from. Or... is this not the case?
If we are to be HYPER-critical of harmonization of the Gospel accounts to give us a clear and concise record of the life, teaching, death, and resurrection of Christ, then we MUST be consistent and be HYPER-critical of ANY attempt ANYWHERE to harmonize an account of an event or teaching. Just as the liberal Boyer wants to look at the crucifixion of Christ, and come away from it claiming any form of harmonization does damage to the artistic and cultural context in which the story was composed and told... so we would HAVE to look at different footage from 9/11 and resist putting together that footage to understand what happened that fateful day.
I am unaware of CNN's cameras claiming to provide the entirity of angles when it comes to a given news story. I am not familiar with Fox News' declaration that every camera angle it provides DEFINITIVELY tells each and EVERY story to the fullest, with NOTHING left to uncover from any other possible camera angles on a given story. Similarly, Matthew does not claim to pen the FINAL WORD on the teaching. life, death, and resurrection of Christ. Luke does not claim for itself that ONLY what is recorded in the pages of his Gospel is what actually happened during Jesus' ministry and mission to redeem a lost people. Quite the contrary. Even John wrote in John 21 that Jesus did MANY OTHER things that are not recorded in this particular book. No gospel is comprehensive in and of itself on the life and death and resurrection of Christ!! No gospel even claims this for itself.
Despite what the liberals want you to think/believe... the Gospel accounts CAN be reconciled with each other. One CAN look at the three "options" for Jesus' final words and come up with a definitive last phrase by Christ: "It is finished," as described by John. (For more on this, see below)* Coming so this conclusion is fairly simple once we understand that each of the gospel writers had a unique vantage point of the events which unfolded. Though the vantage points, or camera angles, differed slightly, there is plenty of evidence to piece the different points in such a way that a fairly clear and accurate depiction of Jesus is carefully edited together to give a clear picture of the historical reality of what occurred, as recorded in the New Testament. Historical documents and records are often needed to be harmonized to show a complete picture of what happened, as no single account claims to be the final say on said event. If we are willing to be wisely charitable with other ancient and modern historical accounts... there is absolutely NO reason to not apply this method of harmonization to another ancient document - The Holy Bible.Of course... seeing as the Bible is literally God's breathed-out Word... this gives even more reason to have trust in the reliability of the documents and in harmonization. But I suppose that is a slightly separate (though indeed important) issue.
*The last words of Jesus recorded by Matthew and Mark are "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" This is not to be understood as Jesus' last words, but they are the last words that these two gospel writers, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, recorded. Mark, for instance, also records that "Jesus uttered a loud cry and breathed his last" (15:37). Luke, then, gives the reader WHAT that loud cry was. "Then Jesus, calling out with a loud voice, said, 'Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!'" Again... Jesus then, having said this, breaths his last. So what was uttered with his final breath? "It is finished." After this, Jesus bows his head and gives up his spirit, for he is now actually dead, having accomplished redemption.
Interesting piece, Ryan. It is indeed logically possible that Jesus said all the things attributed to him separately in the canonical four and that each writer selected the words that he wanted to emphasize. However, what do you do with Mark placing the driving of the moneychangers from the Temple during the last few days of Jesus' life and John placing it just after the Baptism during his first trip to Jerusalem? Or what do you do with Matthew's account of Judas returning the money he was paid to betray Jesus and hanging himself vs. Acts' account of him buying a field with the money and dying in it by causes other than suicide?
ReplyDeleteDr. Mark Given
Dr Given - I am both honored and frightened that you found my blog. :-)
ReplyDeleteIn answer to the first problem you raised... what do I do with the money changer incident being at the end in the Synoptics and at the start of John... I see it these two as I see the differences between Luke 5 and John 21. One instructor on campus has proposed that these two (very different) stories of miraculous catches of fish are the same story... that the author of Luke places it early in Jesus' ministry and the author of John places it as a post-resurrection appearance. However, looking at the context and purpose of each story, I can't see this as the same "miraculous catch" story placed in different places by creative editing - rather, I see two completely different occurrences, both resulting in a miraculous catch of fish by Peter and company.
I think a case could be made that Jesus caused a ruckus at the Temple twice. In the synoptics, Jesus says, “It is written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer,’ but you make it a den of robbers’” (Matthew 21:13). John does not report either of those two things as the problem. He doesn’t say: “It’s a house of prayer.” And he doesn’t say they are “robbers.” Surely these happenings are similar. And if Jesus did do it twice... that would seem to tick off the Jewish leaders EVEN MORE... here this troublesome rabbi didn't just cause us grief once, he has the nerve to do it again two years later! Granted, i am filling in some blanks... but no more, I'd say, than attempts to fill them in by saying it is the same cleansing.
As for what happens to Judas... you had previously brushed aside what I would propose in an earlier class this semester... :-) However... for kicks... allow me to quote at length from the ESV Study Bible... as I have a habit of rambling (as you can tell from both my papers for your class and this reply!)
In Matthew's account, Judas brought the 30 pieces of silver back to the chief priests and elders. The chief priests then purchased the potter's field with Judas's money, with the same effect as if Judas had himself made the purchase.
The two accounts of Judas's death are complementary retellings of the same event, each focusing in different ways on the same details. Both accounts involve: Judas's remorse, the purchase of a field with his ill-gotten money, its reputation as “the Field of Blood,” and Judas's gory death. The main difference is that Matt. 27:5 speaks of Judas hanging himself, while Acts speaks of his body falling headlong and bursting open with all his entrails spilling out. One possible explanation suggests that the field overlooked a cliff, and as Judas hanged himself, the rope (or the branch) may have broken, with his body falling headlong over the edge of the cliff onto jagged rocks below. Others have suggested that Judas's body may have remained hanging for some time decaying and decomposing (“swelling up,” esv footnote), eventually falling to the ground and bursting open in its decomposed condition. In either case, there is no reason to see the two accounts as contradictory, since they focus on complementary details of the same event.
I do not claim to be an expert on these matters. I only think they should at least be placed on the table as an option... A lot in our field just assume there is extreme discontinuity in the NT, and to say otherwise is to be an uneducated rapture-obsessed backwoodys baptist. However... as I take part in consuming both communion wine and beer... and am far more Amillennial... the backwoods baptists wouldn't want me. :-)
... additionally, I just remembered... is it possible that "hanged" in Matthew 27:5 could actually mean "impaled"... as in Ester 2:23? Among the Persians the hanging would have been impalement, which I think is confirmed in Near Eastern depictions and written of by Herodotus (3.125, 129; 4.43). If this is the case, then the traditional understanding of Judas hanging himself with a rope would be incorrect and the Acts account would be the more literal understanding.
ReplyDeleteEither way... Judas died, and I think these may be plausible explanations in reading the text as a whole... under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Is that the most religious-studies-ish thing to say? absolutely not. :)