Are you under the impression that words and actions of Jesus contained in the New Testament are an accurate account of his life and death? Typically, clergy and lay persons alike refer to the New Testament as if it were documented. Yet, in spite of this common assumption, it is highly unlikely that the writers could have had access to the actual dialogue and events related to Jesus’ life. Think about it... No one was walking around with Jesus recording his every comment he uttered and move he made. Furthermore, the writers of the New Testament were not actually the apostles, Mathew, Mark, Luke and John, they were not eye witnesses, and the Gospels were not written until several decades after the time of Jesus.
The writers were actually evangelists and their intent was not to give an accurate account of events, but rather, to interpret the Jesus story based on what they considered to be meaningful. As a result, each of the books has a theme which is based on the evangelist’s particular focus. For instance, the Gospel According to Mark calls itself majestically ‘The Gospel (good news) of Jesus Christ (the Son of God).’ Matthew focuses on Jesus as the one who abides with his people until the end of time. Luke highlights Jesus as the one whose words and deeds liberate those who are oppressed in any way. John portrays Jesus as the one who reveals what God is truly like.
Some Christians today may be outraged when reading this theory but the early Christians found this method of writing to be perfectly acceptable. In the Jewish tradition, the writers of scripture did not even attempt to document their stories; rather, their objective was to capture a God experience in sacred events. Since the writers of the Gospels were of the Jewish tradition, it would only stand to reason that they would reflect upon the life and death of Jesus using this same approach. Those who were rooted in the Jewish tradition understood that Scripture contained interpretations and stories to make a theological point. It was only later that non-Jewish, Western readers, who had no idea of how the scriptures were written, began to literalize the texts.
The writers were actually evangelists and their intent was not to give an accurate account of events, but rather, to interpret the Jesus story based on what they considered to be meaningful. As a result, each of the books has a theme which is based on the evangelist’s particular focus. For instance, the Gospel According to Mark calls itself majestically ‘The Gospel (good news) of Jesus Christ (the Son of God).’ Matthew focuses on Jesus as the one who abides with his people until the end of time. Luke highlights Jesus as the one whose words and deeds liberate those who are oppressed in any way. John portrays Jesus as the one who reveals what God is truly like.
Some Christians today may be outraged when reading this theory but the early Christians found this method of writing to be perfectly acceptable. In the Jewish tradition, the writers of scripture did not even attempt to document their stories; rather, their objective was to capture a God experience in sacred events. Since the writers of the Gospels were of the Jewish tradition, it would only stand to reason that they would reflect upon the life and death of Jesus using this same approach. Those who were rooted in the Jewish tradition understood that Scripture contained interpretations and stories to make a theological point. It was only later that non-Jewish, Western readers, who had no idea of how the scriptures were written, began to literalize the texts.
1 comment:
While your comments are interesting, I am more apt to be concerned with what the "church" did to the original texts to fit in with their power and control purposes. I find oral tradition to be an awesome way of telling stories to reflect the essence of the time. We find that with the history of slavery as well. I am not so sure the "writers" were amiss, but rather the interpreters of said writings.
Post a Comment