MATL - Reflections on Frontline From Jesus to Christ - Part III The Writing of the Gospels

Note: this is part three of a four-part journal entry exploring and evaluating the Frontline series, "From Jesus to Christ" available for free online at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/

I have altered the publication dates so the first entry is listed as the most recent publication, to help facilitate reading order.

Prompt: What was the most challenging or surprising thing you learned about the writing of the Gospels? 

 While I knew the Gospels were written at different times and by authors not directly connected to Jesus (not his Apostles) I was unaware of their connectivity, particularly the Synoptic Gospels, and the presence of the 'Q' source.  I knew John was the most recent of the Gospels, but I did not know the older three were collectively referred to as "Synoptic" and I had to look up the definition of the word.  I was surprised to learn that Mark originally ended with the empty tomb and no direct mention of the Resurrection, particularly since the Resurrection is such a central component of the Christian belief structure.  I was not aware that Luke also wrote the Acts, and therefore the Gospel of Luke and the Acts should be read as a single work in two parts to see the entire story.    

I greatly enjoyed the conversation and lesson on the motivations of the different authors and the literary analysis of their style and content.  I mentioned in an earlier journal entry that I always liked Luke the best of the Gospels, but I struggled to explain the reasoning for this feeling.  The documentary talks about the novel-like qualities to Luke, the approachability and flow of the language and grammar, and the overall sense of romance to the stories.  I love reading epic fictional novels that challenge spirituality and the greater sense of purpose of humanity- Dune, Lord of Light, God Knows, Good Omens, and Ender's Game are great favorites of mine and elicit similar moments of self-reflection to readings from Luke.  

Prompt: Why does it make a difference, theologically, whether the Gospels were written directly by Jesus' Apostles or whether the Gospels were written several decades after his death? Give a specific example of how these 2 approaches would yield 2 different theological interpretations of Jesus. 

Gospel authors writing decades after Jesus' death have the ability to alter or manipulate the story to best reflect lessons and truths relevant to their audience without being challenged by 'those who were there.'  By the time Mark begins writing, the Apostles were likely all dead or extremely old so there was no one to challenge the points emphasized by Mark. It allowed Mark, and subsequent authors, to interpret Jesus' life and works without loss of authenticity or credibility by their audience.  Later Gospel authors also allows for multiple attempts to tell the story.  If the Apostles wrote one Gospel or set of Gospels, they would have a higher authority, as a primary source, than retellings written generations later.  Even if this were not the case during the Roman era (as inferred in the New Oxford Bible, p 1743) it would have extensive impact on the fundamentalist debate in Christianity throughout time. 

Written by later followers, rather than the Apostles, the Gospels become advertisements rather than witness testimonies.  It is less important for the stories in the Gospels to be accurate and more important that they reflect and fill the spiritual needs of the community for whom they are written.   For example, the documentary talks about the evolution of the role of Jewish leadership in the death of Jesus, which was likely an entirely Roman act from history's point of view, but slowly became an entirely Jewish act from the Bible's point of view.   This evolution served to mirror the experiences of the early Christians and their relationship with Judaism and Jewish leaders, as well as their early efforts to settle in the Roman empire, while providing a focus and foil for the death of Jesus.  Placing the decision to turn over Jesus to a reluctant Pontius Pilot on Jewish officials helped separate Jesus and his followers from the rest of Judaism. It helped draw the parallels of the story between Jewish tradition and the new path to salvation. By the time John writes about Passover, Jesus symbolizes the lamb sacrificed for Passover supper, so it makes perfect sense within this story that the Jewish leadership sacrificed Jesus. Passover is a Jewish tradition, not a Roman one, so the symbolism loses authenticity if a non-Jewish motivator causes the death of the Lamb.  Even the name of the Jewish leadership is altered to reflect the name of the Jewish leadership during the time of the Gospel creation- the Pharisees. This creates a real and intimate connection between the reader, the story which happened before they lived, their knowledge of Judaism as part of the Jesus sect, and their desire to be distinct and separate from the more conservative teachings of the Pharisees following the failed Jewish Revolts.   Theologically, the Gospels become guides for the journey of the faithful, answering questions relevant to the evolution of the faith at the time.  

 Finally, there is the consideration that if the Apostles wrote the Gospels, or any other primary sources about the life and death of Jesus, it would limit some areas of theological questioning and would reshape the entire concept of Christian faith.  Setting aside the fact that most 'eyewitness' accounts to traumatic events are highly unreliable, a first-hand account of the crucifixion and (hopefully) resurrection of Jesus would become an irrefutable canon of belief.  If Mary and the other women left consistent writings explaining exactly what they saw on the road, if the Roman guards left written reports documenting the circumstances of Jesus' death, if there were an official Roman inquiry into the missing corpse of Jesus, if all of the many people that Jesus appeared to after rising left the same – or even similar- accounts, then there would be little question for later readers about what happened. The mystery of the Resurrection would become the most well documented of God's miracles.  To some extent, a Gospel written by firsthand accounts would require a literalist approach. It may remove personal interpretation and reflection of Salvation and eternal life and instead say: it is this, and no other.  The story of Jesus couldn't be manipulated by later writers which means there would be no adaptation of the story to suit the needs of later faith groups as we see in the current Gospels. 

 Of course, there is the risk, too, that the first-hand accounts would be contradictory or unpersuasive. Perhaps some accounts allude to a conspiracy to hide Jesus' body, or contradict miracle stories, or say that the Holy Spirit never descended. These writings would be equally damaging to the theology of Christianity- indeed, such writings may destroy the Christian faith.   Perhaps the earliest followers of Jesus used oral tradition to share the stories and words because it was safer than writing things down- it protected the mystery and nurtured the earliest seeds of the faith.  

Prompt: What theological questions did this chapter raise for you? 

 It seems like the Gospel authors went to great lengths to mirror Jesus as the book-end figure to the Hebrew Bible stories. In some cases, he preaches on the Mountain, like Moses.  He defies the most powerful beings in the land, even Satan, like David conquered Goliath or Moses triumphed over Pharaoh.  The later sacking of Jerusalem was turned into prophecy spoken by Jesus to set him with Isaiah and Elijah.  The crisis of the crucifixion for the earliest Christians, and the deliberate decision to find ways to justify this treatment of the Son of God in the Hebrew Bible by the early Gospel writers, implies that there was doubt in the early believers, so Jesus is depicted against the story of Abraham and Isaac, the ultimate sacrifice at the will of God.  

 These deliberate literary efforts cause me to wonder- was Messiahship assigned to Jesus after his death by his believers? Were they so lost and afraid that they gave him a role he never claimed? Or is it possible that the purpose of the Messiah was to rekindle the devotion of people to God and the commitment to the Way of God (living a good, honest, kind life of love) and the more mystic elements of the Resurrection story are symbolic? I wrote earlier that the Resurrection of Christ is the central, defining element of Christianity and I find myself wondering...does it actually matter whether or not the physical body of Jesus rose from the dead?  

 My other question, which is significantly less terrifying to think about, is- why is the Bible organized the way it is? Why are Luke and Acts divided by John, if they're intended to be read in two parts? Why is Matthew before Mark, if Mark is the older tradition?