A few days ago, a friend asked in a discussion group, that I moderate, what we really know about the historic Jesus of Nazareth. He chuckled and then said: “Isn’t the whole Jesus thing just a collection of old religious tales?” A good question.

In December I have been invited to give a series of lectures about Jesus and the Gospels at our local senior center. I was invited, said the fellow who invited me, “because people want to know the truth not just a bunch of pious stories.” Well, interest in my course is remarkably high. The meeting room will be filled to capacity.

Virtually all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was an historical figure and attempts to deny his historicity have been consistently rejected by the scholarly consensus.

Jesus was a Galilean Hebrew who was born between 7 and 2 BCE and died around 30 CE. Jesus lived only in Galilee and Judea. Like most people from Galilee back then, Jesus most likely had brown eyes, dark brown to black hair and olive-brown skin. Jesus spoke Aramaic and may have also spoken Hebrew and Greek.

The tradition about the life and meaning of Jesus are found in the Gospels.

The word gospel is derived from the Anglo-Saxon term god-spellmeaning “good story,” a rendering of the Latin evangelium and the Greek euangelion, meaning “good news.” The Four Gospels proclaim the “good news” about Jesus Christ.

When reading and studying the Gospels, however, our approach should not be based on a literal interpretation of texts but on an historical-critical understanding. In the Gospel of Matthew, for example, we see two textual traditions that can be confusing. With all due respect, the final version of Matthew should have been critiqued by a good editor. We see a negative Matthew, in Matthew 22:1-14, who displays violence, vengeance, and calls for divine retribution on enemies. But we also see a positive Matthew in 5:1-11, who displays the highest possible Christian consciousness in the Sermon on the Mount.

An historical-critical understanding asks what the original text meant in the author’s mind, in its original language. Was the message factual, symbolic, or imagined? What was the intention of the author and the purpose of the text? And what influences affected the text before it achieved its final form.

An historical-critical understanding is essential today, but not just with biblical texts. In fact, in our contemporary life situation, we need a strict historical-critical understanding as well, when seeing and reading news reports and even Facebook observations. Who is doing the reporting? What is the reporter’s background and agenda? Is the reporter reliable? Is what’s being reported truth or fantasy? Or is it absolute falsehood? Is the reporter’s purpose to inform people or to manipulate and control them? An historical-critical perspective and evaluation will be essential in the new U.S. presidential administration.

But getting back to the Gospels…The Gospels were written to inform and encourage believers and to call them to growth in their Christian faith. The Gospels, however, were not written to give us strict “history.” They have history, parables, metaphor, symbol, re-interpreted passages from the Greek (Septuagint) Hebrew Scriptures, and imagined scenarios for key events in the life of Jesus.

Most importantly, the Gospels were written to give the meaning of the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, crucified, and raised from the dead. He revealed Divinity and authentic Humanity.

All four Gospels evolved from oral traditions, passed on from person to person and from place to place. More than one single person (i.e. Mark, Matthew, Luke, John) composed the final versions of the four Gospels as we have them today.

Mark (written for a gentile Christian audience most probably in Rome) was the first Gospel to be written, sometime around the year 70 CE. The Gospel of Matthew (written for a Christian audience with a Hebrew background) and the Gospel of Luke (written for a gentile Christian audience) were composed, independently of one another, sometime in the 80s or 90s. Both used a written form of the Gospel of Mark as source material for their own narratives. In addition, because both Matthew and Luke contain a large amount of material in common that is not found in Mark, most scholars hold that the authors of Matthew and Luke also drew from a collection of Jesus’ sayings that they incorporated into their works.

The Gospel of John (written for a Hebrew Christian and gentile Christian audience) emerges from an independent literary tradition that is not directly connected to the Synoptic tradition. This explains the major differences between John and the Synoptics. John reached its final form around 90–110 CE.

Each time the gospel narrators adapted their accounts to the needs, understanding, and cultural/religious backgrounds of their listeners.

The Gospels were not written therefore to give us strict “history.” They have bits of history, parables, metaphor, symbol, re-interpreted passages from the Greek (Septuagint) Hebrew Scriptures, and imagined scenarios for key events in the life of Jesus. The Gospels were written to give the meaning of the life of Jesus of Nazareth, whom God raised from the dead. We see in Matthew and Luke, for instance, two quite different accounts about Jesus’ infancy. They present creative theological images rather than strict historical facts. Once again perspective is important.

The Gospels’ focus was not primarily to present an historical narrative, but to affirm and proclaim Christian theological belief about Jesus the Christ, in whom we find Divinity, Life, and Hope

Anchored in Christian faith, the authors of the Gospels – using a variety of literary forms — wanted to pass on to future generations their understanding and belief in and about Jesus Christ.

The Gospels inform, stimulate, and encourage us to grow in our own Christian faith.

Living that faith is our contemporary Christian challenge. And that challenge is very real today.

 

Jack

____________________________________

Dr. John Alonzo Dick – Historical Theologian