ARTICLE NAVIGATION: You are presently looking at Part 8.3
PREVIOUS | NEXT
INTRO | PART 1.1 | PART 1.2 | PART 1.3 | PART 1.4 | PART 1.5 | PART 1.6 | PART 2.1 | PART 2.2
PART 2.3 | PART 2.4 | PART 4.0 | PART 5.1 | PART 5.2 | PART 5.3 | PART 5.4 | PART 5.5 | PART 6.2
PART 6.3 | PART 7.1 | PART 7.2 | PART 8.1 | PART 8.2 | PART 8.3 | PART 8.4 | PART 8.5 | PART 8.6
PART 8.7 | PART 9.1 | PART 9.2 | PART 9.3 | PART 10.1 | PART 10.2
PART 31.1 | PART 31.2 | PART 31.3 | PART 31.4
Acknowledgements | Bibliography

Over the next week or so Tom Lee is examining in more detail the origins and background to the New Testament writings that did become proclaimed as divinely inspired. Today the emphasis is on the writing of Paul and Mark. Next week he looks at Matthew.

Which Gospels to Choose? Part 8.3
by Tom Lee

Something of a shock…

When people hear the Scriptures mentioned most people think of the New Testament — the Gospels and Epistles. It comes as something of a shock for some people to realize that when Jesus explained to his followers the passages throughout the Scriptures that were about himself, it is the Old Testament he is quoting, including some sections no longer identifiable, as they were probably documents rejected by the convention of rabbis at Jabneh near the end of the first century.

The early Fathers of the Church started a search for the passages that Jesus quoted on the road to Emmaus, but failed to find any, or at most they couldn't agree about which they were. Yet, the Old Testament is an integral part of Christian tradition because it was an integral part of Jesus' past as well as his spirituality, ethics and theology. The two testaments are deeply interwoven.

However, in the Christian translations of the Tanakh, the Old Testament, there is little that is Hebraic about them; we should feel uneasy about our appropriation of these books. Those who can read the original Hebrew in its abrupt rhythms will find it cleared of irrelevant Christian salvation history, where the intentions were doctrinal rather than aesthetic.

Impossible to know who the original authors were…

Just who the authors of the various gospels were is now impossible to tell, though scholars detect many hands, as memory gave way to convincing invention. It is naive to look upon them as bringing us an authoritative portrait of Jesus, or an accurate history of the origins of the Church that bears his Messianic title. The writers were numerous and the words put together in a kind of liturgical mosaic, which it took more than three centuries to codify.

The Gospels and the Acts were inspired by far more than the Holy Spirit. They are propaganda documents written at a much later date than the events they describe and can no longer be regarded as authentic records that report what actually happened. They were promoted by different or even opposing factions within the early Church. They are expressions of what at a later time, stretching into the second century, it was desired to convey had happened. There are indications that the Evangelists altered or discarded material in their sources that did not suit them, omitting what was contrary to the impression of Jesus and his Apostles that the writers wished to prevail.

St. Paul's letters, the oldest part of the New Testament, written to the various churches he had established during the 50's must also be approached with caution. Although they are earlier, they are considerably removed from the Good News proclaimed by the Apostles and the family of Jesus who had really known him in life. St Paul's gospel received by him in a supposed vision of the risen Lord differed in a number of ways from the original teaching about who Jesus was, or claimed to be. The letters in the form we have them now are also the result of later editing, at a time when Paul's reputation had been rehabilitated. They were first collected and collated about 100 CE, prompted no doubt by the Pharisee rabbi's codification of the Old Testament.

It is clear though from the letters, from descriptions of the Jerusalem Council in Acts, and from other sources such as Josephus, that the earliest post-crucifixion church was ruled by James the brother of Jesus. This situation certainly does not correspond with what the Gospels seem to presuppose, with Simon, known as Cephas (Peter) obviously the leader. Whether historical or not, what the New Testament writers report about Peter represents what the writers or their sources believed to have happened and thus the role which was being given to Peter at the time the individual New Testament books were written — the period from the seventies to the end of the first century.

Even if one were to conclude that Jesus had never said, "You are Peter and on this rock I will build my church..." at Caesarea Philipi,. that would not settle the issue. This tradition, embedded solely in Matthew, and regarded by many scholars as a late interpolation, was maintained somewhere (possibly Alexandria) in the first-century church and represents a Christian evaluation of Peter's position at the time it was added to the narrative, at the end of the first century.

Routine "identity theft"…

The habit of anonymous authors using the names of well-known people was absolutely routine in both Judaism and Christianity — a recognized method of getting a message across to, and accepted by, the masses. It was not regarded as forgery or falsification — it was an accepted convention, but still constitutes fraud on a colossal scale in modern minds.

Ancient historians are very much inclined to credit their personages with speeches that they clearly did not deliver, at least not in such a shape. "I have put into each speaker's mouth," says Thucydides (460-400 BCE), "sentiments proper to the occasion, expressed as I thought he would be likely to express them." Herodotus (484-425 BCE) also rarely distinguishes between fact and fiction, mirroring rather the mentality of his times than historical reality; some called him the Father of Lies. The great difference however between the Greek and Roman classical historians and the Christian writers is that the Evangelists deliberately wrote propaganda aimed at a mass audience, caught up as they themselves were in the drama of salvation, with history divided into two by the Incarnation of Jesus.

Icon of Mark the Evangelist. Elaine Pagel's calls the Gospel's "Wartime literature"

"Wartime literature," Elaine Pagels calls the gospels, reflecting the decisions among Jews traumatized by the sack of Jerusalem and the destruction of their temple, and Raymond Brown believes Mark was written for a persecuted Christian community — possibly in Rome – where many had rejected martyrdom. Mark, he suggests, is assuring them that Jesus himself struggled with a tortured, ignominious death. His Gospel is a call to martyrdom.

A breakaway Jewish faction…

In those years Christians were a breakaway Jewish faction, still hoping to persuade other Jews that Jesus was the Messiah, though he appeared to have died in defeat. It was to account for Christ's arrest and execution, Pagels believes, that the Gospel writers framed the life of Jesus as an episode in the conflict between God and Satan. Seen in that light, the Jews who rejected Jesus were instruments of Satan. The writer of Mark treats them as chiefly responsible for the Crucifixion, while softening the role of the Roman authorities. The later evangelists expanded Mark's themes, paving the way for early Christian fathers who glimpsed the devil in their own adversaries.

It seems a strange coincidence that of all Jesus' twelve apostles, the one whom the Gospel story singles out as a traitor bears the name of the Jewish people. The coincidence was not overlooked by Christian commentators, who saw it as a mysterious sign, by which the Judas-role of the Jews was divinely hinted at. The mythical role of Judas as "sacred executioner" is central to the understanding of why Jewish people have been branded with precisely Judas's vices of envy, greed and ultimate disloyalty.

The Gospel of Mark was an innovation in Christian faith and practice and was written some time in the seventies, after the destruction of Jerusalem, with the aim of disentangling Christianity from its Jewish origins by showing that Jesus had repudiated his family and racial ties and had in turn been rejected with hostility by the Jewish leaders and people. The ways of the Christians were being distanced from Christ's ways; their faith was no longer his faith.

The Markan writer rejects the idea of the Davidic descent of the Messiah, which could be connected with Jewish nationalist aspirations, and ascribes it to the false propaganda of the Scribes of the Jews. He also inserts a prophecy of Jesus foretelling, in his little apocalypse, the destruction of the Temple that had just been so dramatically accomplished in 70 CE. Mark 13:14 has the strange statement "When you see the disastrous abomination set up where it ought not to be (let the reader understand), then those in Judaea must escape to the mountains."

The author is referencing the passage in Daniel where he says the leader of the invaders "shall abolish sacrifice and oblation." Daniel was referring to the invasion by the Syrians under Antiochus in 168 BCE, when the aggressive tyrant erected an idol and altar to Olympian Zeus in the Temple and set up a brothel in the sacred court. The flesh of swine was offered on the altar in the Temple and pagan altars were erected in surrounding cities. In the context the Markan author is, after the fact, warning of a similar event or horror that will take place in the last days, so recently accomplished by Titus. Inserting "let the reader understand" is clueing Roman Christians to see a reference to Emperor Titus, the abomination being he rather than it.

The account of the trial before Pilate creates the impression that the Roman governor recognized the innocence of Jesus, but his hand was forced by the Jewish leaders who were set on Jesus' destruction. The thesis of the virtual innocence of the Romans reaches its significant conclusion on Calvary where the Roman centurion is depicted as testifying to the divine nature of Jesus: "In truth this man was a son of God."

The Markan Gospel is the first evidence, apart from Paul's letters, of a reorientation of Christianity. The influence of Jewish Christianity, despite its decade of unchallenged supremacy after the arrest of Paul, had not been absolute, and following the sudden disappearance of the Jerusalem Church, many of Paul's former adherents recalled the principle of Christian freedom from Jewish control. They saw in the destruction of Jerusalem divine confirmation of Paul's message. The Gospel of Mark was clearly inspired by the theology of Paul, though, in time, it was claimed that it had been written by John Mark, acting as secretary to Peter, and was reputed to be based on the memories of Peter.

Apocalyptic belief that the end of the world was nigh…

No doubt there was deep thankfulness in the dispersed Christian communities that a new seat of Christian authority had come into being, one that had been established by outstanding apostles — guidance had not been withdrawn — although there was some uncertainty, as the apostles had believed that the end of the world would come in their own lifetimes, and already Peter and Paul and several others had died, some as martyrs.

Surprisingly the failure of Jesus to return seems to have done Christianity little harm. As its theology developed the second coming receded in significance, and in time individual ascent of one's spirit into heaven after death superceded the expectation of an earthly resurrection.

The Gospel of Mark mirrors the growing aversion to a Jewish connection on the part of the Gentile churches that would lead to future pogroms and ultimately the Holocaust.

The Gospels of Matthew and Luke were written after Mark, at some period during the last two decades of the first century, probably between 80 and 95. The writers of these Gospels had access to information that Mark did not employ and may not have known, including some two hundred verses in which Matthew and Luke agree. This material consists chiefly of sayings of Jesus. Almost the whole of Mark's Gospel can be found again in Matthew, but Luke only reproduces about half of it. Both Mark and Luke are layered with anti-Jewish sentiment, reflecting the Evangelist's audiences who were caught in the tensions between the synagogue and the emergent Christian Church.

The four Evangelists drew heavily on the psalms and books of the Hebrew prophets. Jesus' agony on the Mount of Olives echoes the end of the Book of Zechariah. The image of Jesus as the suffering servant shadows the words of Isaiah. Judas strongly resembles Judah in Genesis who sells, Joseph for pieces of silver. And the psalms supply numerous quotes and details, including the vinegary wine that the centurion offers the crucified Jesus.

As John Dominic Crossan opines:

"Their minds (the Evangelists) were naturally imbued with Biblical images and phrases. They were interested in the significance of what happened, and the only language they could use to answer that question was scriptural."

Alexandria was the second greatest city of the Graeco-Roman world and, according to Philo, the number of Jews living in the city was at least one million, over an eighth of the entire population of Egypt at that time.

The Church at Alexandria, founded by missionary effort from Judaea and perhaps organized for a time by Peter, was essentially a Jewish institution and the overthrow of the Jewish nation in 70 led to an increase of this Jewish element with the influx of many refugees from Judaea. Out of the situation caused by the destruction of Jerusalem, the Gospel of Matthew was born as an apologia with a Jewish caste. It nevertheless co-opted much of Paul's Christology, attributing it to Peter, and recognizing Christian separation from mainstream Judaism.

ARTICLE NAVIGATION: You are presently looking at Part 8.3
PREVIOUS | NEXT
INTRO | PART 1.1 | PART 1.2 | PART 1.3 | PART 1.4 | PART 1.5 | PART 1.6 | PART 2.1 | PART 2.2
PART 2.3 | PART 2.4 | PART 4.0 | PART 5.1 | PART 5.2 | PART 5.3 | PART 5.4 | PART 5.5 | PART 6.2
PART 6.3 | PART 7.1 | PART 7.2 | PART 8.1 | PART 8.2 | PART 8.3 | PART 8.4 | PART 8.5 | PART 8.6
PART 8.7 | PART 9.1 | PART 9.2 | PART 9.3 | PART 10.1 | PART 10.2
PART 31.1 | PART 31.2 | PART 31.3 | PART 31.4
Acknowledgements | Bibliography

PHOTO CREDIT: The image used in the headline has been sourced from the OnLine Sacred Gallery of the British Library: www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/features/sacred/downloads.html

Tom Lee is an Australian, now semi-retired in Phoenix, Arizona, who has had an illustrious international career as an actor, writer, and broadcast commentator. He does not claim to be a professional theologian, nor an historian, but he undertook this study because, like many of the people who are attracted to what we're doing here at Catholica Australia, he was simply inquisitive about the history of Christianity and trying to better understand what he had been brought up to believe. In a sense, his book is a one-man journey seeking to better understand who Jesus was and what his own faith was about.

What are your thoughts on this commentary? You can contribute to the discussion in our forum.

©2008 Tom Lee (Star Concepts LLC) 15633 N. 17* Drive, Phoenix, AZ 85023-3409

[Index of this series]