A Study of the Evangelists and Their Writings

The Gospels

A Study of the Evangelists and Their Writings

St. Andrew’s Anglican Church

Lewis Center, Ohio

Fr. Ed Steele

Summer 2017

A Study of the Gospels

Introduction to Studying the Gospels

When trying to properly interpret any writing in the New Testament of the Bible, one needs to rely on hermeneutics. Hermeneutics consists of the accepted principles and techniques used in interpretation (exegesis). Most of the techniques used originated in historical and literary schools of thought, but have been applied in more theological ways.

These techniques used for exegesis are known as Biblical Criticisms, and they are called criticisms in that they are critical in an analytical fashion. That is, they help us to analyze and interpret the authors’ original meanings. So please do not confuse the term “Biblical Criticism” as being altogether negative, such as critical remarks we may hear about politicians, relatives or the IRS. Rather, think of criticism in the same light as what a restaurant or movie critic does when evaluating a new eating establishment or the latest blockbuster.

Some Historical Critical Methods Utilized to Interpret the Bible (Exegesis)

Text Criticism

Since we only have copies of the Gospels, the first thing a text critic does is make sure any copy studied is reliable. In other words, does the examined copy accurately compare to other known copies that may exist of that particular writing. Granted, since all of us probably have well known translations, we don’t really have to worry about that. However, this does come up when someone uses a Bible translation that is not commonly accepted, or when a previously unknown copy “miraculously” shows up in a hidden chamber of a forgotten monastery.

Source Criticism

A source critic’s task is to determine what source a copyist utilized to write the manuscript being examined. For example, was the source used one that is known and accepted as valid? Or, is the copy from a primary or secondary source? Source critics also try to determine the origin of the original writing. For example, does it appear the author used a written source (i.e. the Hebrew Scriptures) or an oral source (i.e. one of the disciples)? This is especially important when reading and interpreting the earliest manuscripts of the gospels. We will be looking closer at this particular method when we read the first three gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke).

Form Criticism

A form critic looks at the manuscript being studied, and determines the form or genre used in the writing. For example, the gospels are narratives of Jesus’ life and not biographies. Therefore we don’t have detailed information telling us what day he was born, or exactly what year he was crucified. Instead, we have stories about his miracles and healings, as well as his teachings and sayings which (as we will see) differ depending on what focus the author had on who Jesus really is. Form can also help determine the cultural and social background of the author.

Redaction Criticism

Redaction means editing, and therefore the task of the redaction criticism is to determine how the author edited the story he wrote, and why. This is used primarily in exegetical analysis of the gospels, because each author edited the stories of Jesus to convey a particular point about Jesus and his mission. This is similar to how different news stations may report on the same event. While they each may talk about the same event, what they focus on may be quite different.

Social Science Criticism

This is simply using the knowledge of other fields of study such as anthropology, sociology, history, and archeology to better understand what the original author’s intention was in the given writing.

Israel’s Story of Salvation

The idea of salvation in Jewish thought is directly tied to the idea of covenant. One cannot understand one without the other. In the case of the story of the People of Israel, the Covenant (with a capital “C”) is the foundation for understanding their faith.

In the third chapter of Exodus, we have the story of Moses going up on the mountain and seeing a burning bush. God calls Moses to return to Egypt to free the people of Israel, the Hebrews, from bondage. This release from bondage and slavery is the first part of the Covenant. God called the Hebrew people to be his chosen people; the nation through which he would send his message to all nations. In return, the people were to remain obedient to the laws of God – the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. These laws were and are the Commandments of God, given to Moses on Mt. Sinai during the wanderings after the Hebrews were taken out of Egypt. This is why the first commandment, as well as most of the writings of the prophets in the Old Testament begin with the phrase, “I am the Lord you God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.”

This idea of freedom from bondage, whether it is a physical or spiritual bondage, is what salvation is all about from a Jewish point of view. That is why in the New Testament we read so much about being freed from the bondage of sin and freedom to live as people of God. This is why the idea of the Messiah – the chosen one of God – is center to the idea of salvation for Israel. For it is through the Messiah that the ultimate freedom, and Kingdom of God, will come. It is through the Messiah, that the Covenant with God will come to its final conclusion.

The Messiah

In the Old Testament, beginning with a king by the name of Saul, all the kings of Judah and Israel were anointed with oil by a prophet. The word “messiah” means anointed, so in affect all the kings of Israel and Judah were messiahs. However, as time went on, and particularly after the Babylonian captivity (597 – 539 B.C.) the idea of an ultimate Messiah, an ultimate king, began to cultivate. This Messiah, it was believed, would be the one who would bring about the Kingdom of God; a kingdom in which the pure law of God would be lived out, and all other nations would bow down and worship the Messiah of Israel. Furthermore, by the time of Jesus, it was believed that this Messiah would come and overthrow the power of Rome, freeing the people of Israel from Roman rule, and establish Israel as the nation above all nations.

Sadducees, Pharisees, and the Kingdom of God

Since Sadducees were the priests of the Temple, and believed only in the Torah as sacred scripture, they most likely did not accept the messianic vision. After all, the idea of a “Lord of Hosts” or even Kingdom of God, is not something that is discussed in the Torah. Those concepts, along with such ideas as resurrection, are found in the writings and prophets which the Sadducees did not accept as part of God’s law. Therefore, for the Sadducees, salvation could only come from complete obedience to the Law of God which meant active obedience. They were more concerned with actions than intentions. Furthermore, their idea of salvation was not a concept of the afterlife. For them, if one lived according to the law of God, then one would have a good life now. Any good that came after death was in how others would remember you.

The Pharisees on the other hand, accepted all the writings of the Hebrew Scriptures, and did look forward to the coming of the Messiah. However for them, the Messiah would be a mighty warrior for God. He would bring about God’s kingdom and punish the wicked who did not believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Additionally, they believed in an afterlife that included resurrection in the final days when the earthly Kingdom of God would come about.

So we will see that the Kingdom of God that Jesus taught about in the gospels did not fit the plan of either the Sadducees or the Pharisees, which is why there were problems throughout Jesus’ ministry.

The Greco-Roman World of the New Testament

Hellenization is the term used to describe the Greek culture brought about by the conquests of Alexander the Great around 330 B.C., and this culture included language, architecture, philosophy, religion, and politics. However, by the time Alexander died in 323 B.C., the Roman Republic began to expand and within a century (because of wars among Alexander’s generals after his death) Rome became a major power. Although it was replacing Greece as the major power however, the ruling class in Rome spoke Greek, adopted Greek religion (though they gave the Greek gods different names), and they used a form of Greek politics. Therefore, as the Roman Republic grew in power, it simply continued the Hellenistic culture. This is why the timeframe of the New Testament is called the Greco-Roman period.

However, the age of the Roman Republic came to an end after more than 200 years of existence. In 49 B.C., after success in the Gallic Wars, a general by the name of Gaius Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon and entered Rome with his legions. This was illegal under Roman law, because generals returning from a war were to disband their army before entering Italy. In Caesar’s case, although he had been ordered to give up his army and return home, he crossed the river into Italy, entered the city of Rome, took power of the Senate, and had himself named “Dictator for Life”. One of those who backed him in his conquest was a man from Idumea, named Antipater, who used his political clout to gain Caesar allies outside of Rome. For his efforts, Caesar granted Antipater citizenship and a nice administrative position. Antipater in turn, appointed his son, Herod, to be the governor of Galilee.

However, a mere five years after becoming “Dictator for Life”, Gaius Julius Caesar was assassinated by members of the Roman Senate – March 15, 44 B.C. The old Roman Republic was gone; but the true Roman Empire had not yet begun. After Caesar’s death, there was more civil war (mainly between those who killed Caesar and those who wanted to take his place) and Antipater wisely sided with those who wanted to take Caesar’s place in Rome. So much so, that at his request, his son Herod was promoted by the Roman Senate in 40 B.C. to be “King of Israel”. By the way, Gaius Octavian (aka Augustus) - Caesar’s nephew and heir – won the civil war and in 27 B.C. was declared Emperor of Rome, and the Roman Empire was officially created. King Herod the Great, meanwhile, had most of his own family assassinated, levied enormous taxes, built three massive fortresses along with a new temple, and had a nice shiny Roman eagle mounted on the top of the temple gate (lest anyone forget where the real power was).

When Herod died, his three sons were all given parts of Palestine to rule, and Galilee (where Jesus grew up) came under Herod Antipas, whom we read about in the gospels. Herod Archelaus was given rule over Judea, Samaria, and Idumea, but was later removed by Rome. Archelaus was replaced by direct rule of the Roman Emperor as represented by his Prefect, Pontius Pilate. Pilate was a Roman general whose mission was to maintain order at all costs, and most historians agree he hated both his assignment and the Jewish people.

It was into this Greco-Roman world, this Hellenistic culture, that Jesus of Nazareth was born. Furthermore, it was in this world and culture that the good news of Jesus as Messiah was announced by the four evangelists whom we know as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Their writings form the basis of what we know about who Jesus was, is, and forever will be.

The Gospel of Jesus the Christ, According to Mark

The Synoptic Problem

Concerning when this gospel may have been written, there is a case for dating the Gospel According to Mark fairly early. That argument is based on what scholars call “the synoptic problem”. Now this is not a problem in the sense of being something difficult, but rather in the sense of being something to be solved – like a math problem.

The word synoptic means, “with the same eyes”, and it is used when referring to the first three gospels. Most Bible scholars believe that the Gospel According to Mark was written first, based on the amount of information from this gospel that also appears in Matthew and Luke. Although both Matthew and Luke also contain other information not found in Mark – or in each other. In fact, the diagram below is an illustration of the relationship between the synoptic gospels according to most scholars.

You may notice that according to this theory, Mark appears to be a source for both Matthew and Luke, but there is also another source simply identified as “Q”. The Q document (from the German word, quelle) is a theoretical document, no longer in existence, that is believed to have been a collection of sayings, teachings and stories about Jesus that are in Matthew and Luke, but not in Mark.

Date and Authorship

Anyway, the idea here is that Mark was written before Matthew and Luke. But, if Luke and The Acts of the Apostles were both written by the same author at about the same time (as most scholars agree), and Acts does not mention Paul’s death which took place in 64AD, then one theory is that Mark had to have been written before 64AD. If that is the case, then this gospel could have been written as early as the late 50’s thereby placing the “best guess” dating somewhere between 59 and 62AD at the earliest. Of course there are others who claim the Gospel According to Mark was written a decade or two later, due to this gospel’s strong affinity with those who are suffering. The later date is based on the thought that this gospel could have been written for those early Christian martyrs who were being persecuted and killed for the faith following the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD.

As for authorship, like all the gospels there is no signature, nor does the author state who he is. In other words, who the Church has believed the author to be is based mostly (if not totally) on church tradition. But at least in the case of the Gospel According to Mark, there are some pretty convincing statements made by early Christians attributing this gospel to Mark, a companion of Peter’s.

“Matthew composed his gospel among the Hebrews in their own language, while Peter and Paul proclaimed the gospel in Rome and founded the community. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, handed on his preaching to us in written form” Irenaeus (130-200 AD)

“And so great a joy of light shone upon the minds of the hearers of Peter that they were not satisfied with merely a single hearing or with the unwritten teaching of the divine gospel, but with all sorts of entreaties they besought Mark, who was a follower of Peter and whose gospel is extant, to leave behind with them in writing a record of the teaching passed on to them orally; and they did not cease until they had prevailed upon the man and so became responsible for the Scripture for reading in the churches.” Clement of Alexandria (150-215 AD)

“It is said that he [Jesus] changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and it is written in his memoirs that he changed the names of others, two brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, which means ‘sons of thunder’….” Justin Martyr (150 AD)

But again, please understand that we really do not know who wrote this, or any of the gospels. That is not to say the tradition is wrong; it simply means what we have is really only based on tradition.

Mark’s gospel is often symbolized by a winged lion. This is because although Jesus tells those he heals to keep quiet about the healings (this is called the Messianic Secret), he is crucified under a sign that says “King of the Jews”, the soldiers mock him by calling him “King”, and a Roman soldier finally does state that Jesus is the Son of God. So Mark’s gospel, since early times, has been seen as one that deals primarily with Jesus’ role as the king who would bring about the Kingdom of God on earth; and since the lion is identified with royalty, the winged lion became the symbol for this gospel.

General Overview

One of the first items of note when looking at the Gospel According to Mark is how it begins. There is nothing about Jesus' birth or childhood; in fact there is really nothing about Jesus until the 9th verse. Up until that time, the information we are given is all about John, a prophet who was doing baptisms in the Jordan River.