|
| |
|
In the writings that come from the early stages of
Christianity, the Gospels are not mentioned until long
after the works of Paul. It was not until the middle of
the Second century A.D., after 140 A.D. to be precise,
that accounts began to appear concerning a collection of
Evangelic writings, In spite of this, "from the
beginning of the Second century A.D., many Christian
authors clearly intimate that they knew a. great many of
Paul's letters." These observations are set out in
the Introduction to the Ecumenical Translation of the
Bible, New Testament (Introduction à la Traduction
oecuménique de la Bible, Nouveau Testament) edited 1972 [ Pub. Editions du Cerf et Les Bergers et les Mages,
Paris.]. They are worth mentioning from the outset, and
it is useful to point out here that the work referred to
is the result of a collective effort which brought
together more than one hundred Catholic and Protestant
specialists.
The Gospels, later to become official, i.e. canonic,
did not become known until fairly late, even though they
were completed at the beginning of the Second century
A.D. According to the Ecumenical Translation, stories
belonging to them began to be quoted around the middle of
the Second century A.D. Nevertheless, "it is nearly
always difficult to decide whether the quotations come
from written texts that the authors had next to them or
if the latter were content to evoke the memory of
fragments of the oral tradition."
"Before 140 A.D." we read in the
commentaries this translation of the Bible contains,
"there was, in any case, no account by which one
might have recognised a collection of evangelic
writings". This statement is the opposite of what A.
Tricot writes (1960) in the commentary to his translation
of the New Testament: "Very early on, from the
beginning of the Second century A.D., it became a habit
to say "Gospel' meaning the books that Saint Justin
around 150 A.D. had also called "The Memoirs of the
Apostles'." Unfortunately, assertions of this kind
are sufficiently common for the public to have ideas on
the date of the Gospels which are mistaken.
The Gospels did not form a complete whole 'very early
on'; it did not happen until more than a century after
the end of Jesus's mission. The Ecumenical Translation
of the Bible estimates the date the four Gospels
acquired the status of canonic literature at around 170
A.D.
Justin's statement which calls the authors 'Apostles'
is not acceptable either, as we shall see.
As far as the date the Gospels were written is
concerned, A. Tricot states that Matthew's, Mark's and
Luke's Gospels were written before 70 A.D.: but this is
not acceptable, except perhaps for Mark. Following many
others, this commentator goes out of his way to present
the authors of the Gospels as the apostles or the
companions of Jesus. For this reason he suggests dates of
writing that place them very near to the time Jesus
lived. As for John, whom A. Tricot has us believe lived
until roughly 100 A.D., Christians have always been used
to seeing him depicted as being very near to Jesus on
ceremonial occasions. It is very difficult however to
assert that he is the author of the Gospel that bears his
name. For A. Tricot, as for other commentators, the
Apostle John (like Matthew) was the officially qualified
witness of the facts he recounts, although the majority
of critics do not support the hypothesis which says he
wrote the fourth Gospel.
If however the four Gospels in question cannot
reasonably be regarded as the 'Memoirs' of the apostles
or companions of Jesus, where do they come from?
Culmann, in his book The New Testament (Le
Nouveau Testament) [ Pub. Presses Universitaires de France, Paris, 1967], says of this that the
evangelists were only the "spokesmen of the
early Christian community which wrote
down the oral tradition. For thirty or forty years,
the Gospel had existed as an almost exclusively oral
tradition: the latter only transmitted sayings and
isolated narratives. The evangelists strung them
together, each in his own way according to his own
character and theological preoccupations. They linked
up the narrations and sayings handed down by the
prevailing tradition. The grouping of Jesus's sayings
and likewise the sequence of narratives is made by
the use of fairly vague linking phrases such as
'after this', 'when he had' etc. In other words, the
'framework' of the Synoptic Gospels [ The three Gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke.]
is of a
purely literary order and is not based on
history."
The same author continues as follows:
"It must be noted that the needs of
preaching, worship and teaching, more than
biographical considerations, were what guided the
early community when it wrote down the tradition of
the life of Jesus. The apostles illustrated the truth
of the faith they were preaching by describing the
events in the life of Jesus. Their sermons are what
caused the descriptions to be written down. The
sayings of Jesus were transmitted, in particular, in
the teaching of the catechism of the early
Church."
This is exactly how the commentators of the Ecumenical
Translation of the Bible (Traduction oecuménique de
la Bible) describe the writing of the Gospels: the
formation of an oral tradition influenced by the
preachings of Jesus's disciples and other preachers; the
preservation by preaching of this material, which is in
actual fact found in the Gospels, by preaching, liturgy,
and teaching of the faithful; the slender possibility of
a concrete form given by writings to certain confessions
of faith, sayings of Jesus, descriptions of the Passion
for example; the fact that the evangelists resort to
various written forms as well as data contained in the
oral tradition. They resort to these to produce texts
which "are suitable for various circles, which meet
the needs of the Church, explain observations on the
Scriptures, correct errors and even, on occasion, answer
adversaries' objections. Thus the evangelists, each
according to his own outlook, have collected and recorded
in writing the material given to them by the oral
tradition".
This position has been collectively adopted by more
than one hundred experts in the exegesis of the New
Testament, both Catholic and Protestant. It diverges
widely from the line established by the Second Vatican
Council in its dogmatic constitution on the Revelation
drawn up between 1962 and 1965. This conciliar document
has already been referred to once above, when talking of
the Old Testament. The Council was able to declare of the
latter that the books which compose it "contain
material which is imperfect and obsolete", but it
has not expressed the same reservations about the
Gospels. On the contrary, as we read in the following.
"Nobody can overlook the fact that, among all the
Scriptures, even those of the New Testament, the Gospels
have a well-deserved position of superiority. This is by
virtue of the fact that they represent the most
pre-eminent witness to the life and teachings of the
Incarnate Word, Our Saviour. At all times and in all
places the Church has maintained and still maintains the
apostolic origin of the four Gospels. What the apostles
actually preached on Christ's orders, both they and the
men in their following subsequently transmitted, with the
divine inspiration of the Spirit, in writings which are
the foundation of the faith, i.e. the fourfold Gospel
according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John."
"Our Holy Mother, the Church, has firmly
maintained and still maintains with the greatest
constancy, that these four Gospels, which it
unhesitatingly confirms are historically authentic,
faithfully transmit what Jesus, Son Of God, actually did
and taught during his life among men for their eternal
salvation until the day when He was taken up into the
heavens. . . . The sacred authors therefore composed the
four Gospels in such a way as to always give us true and
frank information on the life of Jesus".
This is an unambiguous affirmation of the fidelity
with which the Gospels transmit the acts and sayings of
Jesus.
There is hardly any compatibility between the
Council's affirmation and what the authors quoted above
claim. In particular the following:
The Gospels "are not to be taken
literally" they are "writings suited to
an occasion" or "combat writings".
Their authors "are writing down the traditions of
their own community concerning Jesus". (Father Kannengiesser).
The Gospels are texts which "are suitable for
various circles, meet the needs of the Church, explain
observations on the Scriptures, correct errors and even,
on occasion, answer adversaries' objections. Thus, the
evangelists, each according to his own outlook, have
collected and recorded in writing the material given to
them by the oral tradition". (Ecumenical
Translation of the Bible).
It is quite clear that we are here faced with
contradictory statements: the declaration of the Council
on the one hand, and more recently adopted attitudes on
the other. According to the declaration of the Second
Vatican Council, a faithful account of the actions and
words of Jesus is to be found in the Gospels; but it is
impossible to reconcile this with the existence in the
text of contradictions, improbabilities, things which are
materially impossible or statements which run contrary to
firmly established reality.
If, on the other hand, one chooses to regard the
Gospels as expressing the personal point of view of those
who collected the oral traditions that belonged to
various communities, or as writings suited to an occasion
or combat-writings, it does not come as a surprise to
find faults in the Gospels. All these faults are the sign
that they were written by men in circumstances such as
these. The writers may have been quite sincere, even
though they relate facts without doubting their
inaccuracy. They provide us with descriptions which
contradict other authors' narrations, or are influenced
by reasons of religious rivalry between communities. They
therefore present stories about the life of Jesus from a
completely different angle than their adversaries.
It has already been shown how the historical context
is in harmony with the second approach to the Gospels.
The data we have on the texts themselves definitively
confirms it.
|
|
Matthew's is the first of the four Gospels as they
appear in the New Testament. This position is perfectly
justified by the fact that it is a prolongation, as it
were, of the Old Testament. It was written to show that
"Jesus fulfilled the history of Israel", as the
commentators of the Ecumenical Translation of the
Bible note and on which we shall be drawing heavily.
To do BO, Matthew constantly refers to quotations from
the Old Testament which show how Jesus acted as if he
were the Messiah the Jews were awaiting.
This Gospel begins with a genealogy of Jesus
[ The fact that it is in contradiction with Luke's
Gospel will be dealt with in a separate chapter.]. Matthew traces it back to
Abraham via David. We shall presently see the fault in
the text that most commentators silently ignore.
Matthew's obvious intention was nevertheless to indicate
the general tenor of his work straight away by
establishing this line of descendants. The author
continues the same line of thought by constantly bringing
to the forefront Jesus's attitude toward Jewish law, the
main principles of which (praying, fasting, and
dispensing charity) are summarized here.
Jesus addresses His teachings first and foremost to
His own people. This is how He speaks to the twelve
Apostles "go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter
no town of the Samaritans [ The Samaritans' religious code was the Torah or
Pentateuch; they lived in the expectation of the Messiah
and were faithful to most Jewish observances, but they
had built a rival Temple to the one at Jerusalem.] but go rather to the
lost sheep of the house of Israel." (Matthew 10,
5-6). "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the
house of Israel". (Matthew 15, 24). At the end of
his Gospel, in second place, Matthew extends the
apostolic mission of Jesus's first disciples to all
nations. He makes Jesus give the following order.
"Go therefore and make disciples of all
nations" (Matthew 28, 19), but the primary
destination must be the 'house of Israel'.
Tricot says of this Gospel, "Beneath its Greek
garb, the flesh and bones of this book are Jewish, and so
is its spirit; it has a Jewish feel and bears its
distinctive signs".
On the basis of these observations alone, the origins
of Matthew's Gospel may be placed in the tradition of a
Judeo-Christian community. According to O. Culmann, this
community "was trying to break away from Judaism
while at the same time preserving the continuity of the
Old Testament. The main preoccupations and the general
tenor of this Gospel point towards a strained
situation."
There are also political factors to be found in the
text. The Roman occupation of Palestine naturally
heightened the desire of this country to see itself
liberated. They prayed for God to intervene in favour of
the people He had chosen among all others, and as their
omnipotent sovereign who could give direct support to the
affairs of men, as He had already done many times in the
course of history.
What sort of person was Matthew? Let us say straight
away that he is no longer acknowledged to be one of
Jesus's companions. A. Tricot nevertheless presents him
as such in his commentary to the translation of the New
Testament, 1960: "Matthew alias, Levi, was a customs
officer employed at the tollgate or customs house at
Capharnaum when Jesus called him to be one of His
disciples." This is the opinion of the Fathers of
the Church, Origen, Jerome and Epiphanes. This opinion is
no longer held today. One point which is uncontested is
that the author is writing "for people who speak
Greek, but nevertheless know Jewish customs and the
Aramaic language."
It would seem that for the commentators of the
Ecumenical Translation, the origins of this Gospel are as
follows:
"It is normally considered to have been written
in Syria, perhaps at Antioch (. . .), or in Phoenicia,
because a great many Jews lived in these countries. [ It has been thought that the Judeo-Christian
community that Matthew belonged to might just as easily
have been situated at Alexandria. O. Culmann refers to
this hypothesis along with many others.] (. . .) we have indications of a polemic against the
orthodox Judaism of the Synagogue and the Pharasees such
as was manifested at the synagogal assembly at Jamina
circa 80 A.D." In such conditions, there are many
authors who date the first of the Gospels at about 80-90
A.D., perhaps also a little earlier. it is not possible
to be absolutely definite about this . . . since we do
not know the author's exact name, we must be satisfied
with a few outlines traced in the Gospel itself. the
author can be recognized by his profession. He is
well-versed in Jewish writings and traditions. He knows,
respects, but vigorously challenges the religious leaders
of his people. He is a past master in the art of teaching
and making Jesus understandable to his listeners. He
always insists on the practical consequences of his
teachings. He would fit fairly well the description of an
educated Jew turned Christian; a householder "who
brings out of his treasure what is new and what is
old" as Matthew says (13,52). This is a long way
from the civil servant at Capharnaum, whom Mark and Luke
call Levi, and who had become one of the twelve Apostles
. . .
Everyone agrees in thinking that Matthew wrote his
Gospel using the same sources as Mark and Luke. His
narration is, as we shall see, different on several
essential points. In spite of this, Matthew borrowed
heavily from Mark's Gospel although the latter was not
one of Jesus's disciples (O. Culmann).
Matthew takes very serious liberties with the text. We
shall see this when we discuss the Old Testament in
relation to the genealogy of Jesus which is placed at the
beginning of his Gospel.
He inserts into his book descriptions which are quite
literally incredible. This is the adjective used in the
work mentioned above by Father Kannengiesser referring to
an episode in the Resurrection. the episode of the guard.
He points out the improbability of the story referring to
military guards at the tomb, "these Gentile
soldiers" who "report, not to their
hierarchical superiors, but to the high priests who pay
them to tell lies". He adds however: "One must
not laugh at him because Matthew's intention was
extremely serious. In his own way he incorporates ancient
data from the oral tradition into his written work. The
scenario is nevertheless worthy of Jesus Christ
Superstar. [ An American film which parodies the life of Jesus.]"
Let us not forget that this opinion on Matthew comes
from an eminent theologian teaching at the Catholic
Institute of Paris (Institut Catholique de Paris).
Matthew relates in his narration the events
accompanying the death of Jesus. They are another example
of his imagination.
"And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn
in two, from top to bottom; and the earth shook, and the
rocks were split; the tombs also were opened, and many
bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised,
and coming out of tombs after his resurrection they went
into the holy city and appeared to many."
This passage from Matthew (27, 51-53) has no
corresponding passage in the other Gospels. It is
difficult to see how the bodies of the saints in question
could have raised from the dead at the time of Jesus's
death (according to the Gospels it was on the eve of
the Sabbath) and only emerge from their tombs after
his resurrection (according to the same sources on
the day after the Sabbath).
The most notable improbability is perhaps to be found
in Matthew. It is the most difficult to rationalize of
all that the Gospel authors claim Jesus said. He relates
in chapter 12, 38-40 the episode concerning Jonah's sign:
Jesus was among the scribes and pharisees who
addressed him in the following terms:
"Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you. But he
answered them, "An evil and adulterous generation
seeks for a sign; but no sign shall be given to it except
the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three
days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so will
the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the
heart of the earth."
Jesus therefore proclaims that he will stay in the
earth three days and three nights. So Matthew, along with
Luke and Mark, place the death and burial of Jesus on the
eve of the Sabbath. This, of course, makes the time spent
in the earth three days (treis êmeras in the
Greek text), but this period can only include two and not
three nights (treis nuktas in the Greek text [ In another part of his Gospel Matthew again refers
to this episode but without being precise about the time
(16, 1-4). The same is true for Luke (11, 29-32). We
shall see later on how in Mark, Jesus is said to have
declared that no sign would be given to that generation
(Mark 8, 11-12).]).
Gospel commentators frequently ignore this episode.
Father Roguet nevertheless points out this improbability
when he notes that Jesus "only stayed in the
tomb" three days (one of them complete) and two
nights. He adds however that "it is a set expression
and really means three days". It is disturbing to
see commentators reduced to using arguments that do not
contain any positive meaning. It would be much more
satisfying intellectually to say that a gross error such
as this was the result of a scribe's mistake!
Apart from these improbabilities, what mostly
distinguishes Matthew's Gospel is that it is the work of
a Judeo-Christian community in the process of breaking
away from Judaism while remaining in line with the Old
Testament. From the point of view of Judeo-Christian
history it is very important.
|
|
This is the shortest of the four Gospels. It is also
the oldest, but in spite of this it is not a book written
by an apostle. At best it was written by an apostle's
disciple.
O. Culmann has written that he does not consider Mark
to be a disciple of Jesus. The author nevertheless points
out, to those who have misgivings about the ascription of
this Gospel to the Apostle Mark, that "Matthew and
Luke would not have used this Gospel in the way they did
had they not known that it was indeed based on the
teachings of an apostle". This argument is in no way
decisive. O. Culmann backs up the reservations he
expresses by saying that he frequently quotes from the
New Testament the sayings of a certain 'John nicknamed
Mark'. These quotations. do not however mention the name
of a Gospel author, and the text of Mark itself does not
name any author.
The paucity of information on this point has led
commentators to dwell on details that seem rather
extravagant: using the pretext, for example, that Mark
was the only evangelist to relate in his description of
the Passion the story of the young man who had nothing
but a linen cloth about his body and, when seized, left
the linen cloth and ran away naked
(Mark 14, 51-52), they conclude that the young man must
have been Mark, "the faithful disciple who tried to
follow the teacher" (Ecumenical Translation). Other
commentators see in this "personal memory a sign of authenticity, an anonymous signature", which
"proves that he was an eyewitness" (O. Culmann).
O. Culmann considers that "many turns of phrase
corroborate the hypothesis that the author was of Jewish
origin," but the presence of Latin expressions might
suggest that he had written his Gospel in Rome. "He
addresses himself moreover to Christians not living in
Palestine and is careful to explain the Aramic
expressions he uses."
Tradition has indeed tended to see Mark as Peter's
companion in Rome. It is founded on the final section of
Peter's first letter (always supposing that he was indeed
the author) . Peter wrote in his letter. "The
community which is at Babylon, which is likewise chosen,
sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark."
"By Babylon, what is probably meant is Rome" we
read in the commentary to the Ecumenical Translation.
From this, the commentators then imagine themselves
authorized to conclude that Mark, who was supposed to
have been with Peter in Rome, was the Evangelist . . .One
wonders whether it was not the same line of reasoning
that led Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis in circa 150 A.D.,
to ascribe this Gospel to Mark as 'Peter's interpreter'
and the possible collaborator of Paul.
Seen from this point of view, the composition of
Mark's Gospel could be placed after Peter's death, i.e.
at between 65 and 70 A.D. for the Ecumenical Translation
and circa 70 A.D. for O. Culmann.
The text itself unquestionably reveals a major flaw.
it is written with a total disregard to chronology. Mark
therefore places, at the beginning of his narration (1,
16-20), the episode of the four fishermen whom Jesus
leads to follow him by simply saying "I will make
you become fishers of men", though they do not even
know Him. The evangelist shows, among other things, a
complete lack of plausibility.
As Father Roguet has said, Mark is 'a clumsy writer',
'the weakest of all the evangelists'; he hardly knows how
to write a narrative. The commentator reinforces his
observation by quoting a passage about how the twelve
Apostles were selected.
Here is the literal translation:
"And he went up into the hills, and called to him
those whom he desired; and they came to him. And he made
that the twelve were to be with him, and to be sent out
to preach and have authority to cast out demons; and he
made the twelve and imposed the name Simon on Peter"
(Mark, 3, 13-16).
He contradicts Matthew and Luke, as has already been
noted above, with regard to the sign of Jonah. On the
subject of signs given by Jesus to men in the course of
His mission Mark (8, 11-13) describes an episode that is
hardly credible:
"The Pharisees came and began to argue with him,
seeking from him a sign from heaven, to test him. And he
sighed deeply in his spirit, and said, 'Why does this
generation seek a sign? Truly, I say to you, no sign
shall be given to this generation.' And he left them, and
getting into the boat again he departed to the other
side."
There can be no doubt that this is an affirmation
coming from Jesus Himself about his intention not to
commit any act which might appear supernatural. Therefore
the commentators of the Ecumenical Translation, who are
surprised that Luke says Jesus will only give one sign
(the sign of Jonah; see Matthew's Gospel) , consider it
'paradoxical' that Mark should say "no sign shall be
given to this generation" seeing, as they note, the
"miracles that Jesus himself gives as a sign"
(Luke 7,22 and 11,20).
Mark's Gospel as a whole is officially recognised as
being canonic. All the same, the final section of Mark's
Gospel (16,1920) is considered by modem authors to have
been tacked on to the basic work: the Ecumenical
Translation is quite explicit about this.
This final section is not contained in the two oldest
complete manuscripts of the Gospels, the Codex
Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus that date
from the Fourth century A.D. O. Culmann notes on this
subject that: "More recent Greek manuscripts and
certain versions at this point added a conclusion on
appearances which is not drawn from Mark but from the
other Gospels." In fact, the versions of this added
ending are very numerous. In the texts there are long and
short versions (both are reproduced in the Bible, Revised
Standard Version, 1952). Sometimes the long version has
some additional material.
Father Kannengiesser makes the following comments on
the ending. "The last verses must have been
surpressed when his work was officially received (or the
popular version of it) in the community that guaranteed
its validity. Neither Matthew, Luke or a fortiori John
saw the missing section. Nevertheless, the gap was
unacceptable. A long time afterwards, when the writings
of Matthew, Luke and John, all of them similar, had been
in circulation, a worthy ending to Mark was composed. Its
elements were taken from sources throughout the other
Gospels. It would be easy to recognise the pieces of the
puzzle by enumerating Mark (16,9-20). One would gain a
more concrete idea of the free way in which the literary
genre of the evangelic narration was handled until the
beginnings of the Second century A.D."
What a blunt admission is provided for us here, in the
thoughts of a great theologian, that human manipulation
exists in the texts of the Scriptures!
|
|
For O. Culmann, Luke is a 'chronicler', and for Father
Kannengiesser he is a 'true novelist'. In his prologue to Theophilus, Luke warns us that he, in his turn, following
on from others who have written accounts concerning
Jesus, is going to write a narrative of the same facts
using the accounts and information of
eyewitnesses-implying that he himself is not
one-including information from the apostles' preachings.
It is therefore to be a methodical piece of work which he
introduces in the following terms:
"Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a
narrative of the things which have been accomplished
among us, just as they were delivered to us by those who
from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the
word, it seemed good to me also, having informed myself
about all things from their beginnings, to write an
orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that
you may know the truth concerning things of which you
have been informed."
From the very first line one can see all that
separates Luke from the 'scribbler' Mark to whose work we
have just referred. Luke's Gospel is incontestably a
literary work written in classical Greek free from any
barbarisms.
Luke was a cultivated Gentile convert to Christianity.
His attitude towards the Jews is immediately apparent. As
O. Culmann points out, Luke leaves out Mark's most Judaic
verses and highlights the Jews' incredulity at Jesus's
words, throwing into relief his good relations with the
Samaritans, whom the Jews detested. Matthew, on the other
hand, has Jesus ask the apostles to flee from them. This
is just one of many striking examples of the fact that
the evangelists make Jesus say whatever suits their own
personal outlook. They probably do so with sincere
conviction. They give us the version of Jesus's words
that is adapted to the point of view of their own
community. How can one deny in the face of such evidence
that the Gospels are 'combat writings' or 'writings
suited to an occasion', as has been mentioned already?
The comparison between the general tone of Luke's Gospel
and Matthew's is in this respect a good demonstration.
Who was Luke? An attempt has been made to identify him
with the physician of the same name referred to by Paul
in several of his letters. The Ecumenical Translation
notes that "several commentators have found the
medical occupation of the author of this Gospel confirmed
by the precision with which he describes the sick".
This assessment is in fact exaggerated out of all
proportion. Luke does not properly speaking 'describe'
things of this kind; "the vocabulary he uses is that
of a cultivated man of his time". There was a Luke
who was Paul's travelling companion, but was he the same
person? O. Culmann thinks he was.
The date of Luke's Gospel can be estimated according
to several factors: Luke used Mark's and Matthew's
Gospels. From what we read in the Ecumenical Translation,
it seems that he witnessed the siege and destruction of
Jerusalem by Titus's armies in 70 A.D. The Gospel
probably dates from after this time. Present-day critics
situate the time it was written at .circa 80-90 A.D., but
several place it at an even earlier date.
The various narrations in Luke show important
differences when compared to his predecessors. An outline
of this has already been given. The Ecumenical
Translation indicates them on pages 181 et sec. O. Culmann, in his book, The New Testament (Le
Nouveau Testament) page 18, cites descriptions in Luke's
Gospel that are not to be found anywhere else. And they
are not about minor points of detail.
The descriptions of Jesus's childhood are unique to
Luke's Gospel. Matthew describes Jesus's childhood
differently from Luke, and Mark does not mention it at
all.
Matthew and Luke both provide different genealogies of
Jesus: the contradictions are so large and the
improbabilities so great, from a scientific point of
view, that a special chapter of this book has been
devoted to the subject. It is possible to explain why
Matthew, who was addressing himself to Jews, should begin
the genealogy at Abraham, and include David in it, and
that Luke, as a converted Gentile, should want to go back
even farther. We shall see however that the two
genealogies contradict each other from David onwards.
Jesus's mission is described differently on many
points by Luke, Matthew and Mark.
An event of such great importance to Christians as the
institution of the Eucharist gives rise to variations
between Luke and the other two evangelists. [ It is not possible to establish a comparison with
John because he does not refer to the institution of the
Eucharist during the Last Supper prior to the Passion.] Father
Roguet notes in his book Initiation to the Gospel
(Initiation à l'Evangile) page 75, that the words used
to institute the Eucharist are reported by Luke
(22,19-24) in a form very different from the wording in
Matthew (26,26-29) and in Mark (14,22-24) which is almost
identical.
"On the contrary" he writes, "the
wording transmitted by Luke is very similar to that
evoked by Saint Paul" (First Letter to the
Corinthians, 11,23-25) .
As we have seen, in his Gospel, Luke expresses ideas
on the subject of Jesus's Ascension which contradict what
he says in the Acts of the Apostles. He is recognized as
their author and they form an integral part of the New
Testament. In his Gospel he situates the Ascension on
Easter Day, and in the Acts forty days later. We already
know to what strange commentaries this contradiction has
led Christian experts in exegesis.
Commentators wishing to be objective, such as those of
the Ecumenical Translation of the Bible, have been
obliged to recognise as a general rule the fact that for
Luke "the main preoccupation was not to write facts
corresponding to material accuracy". When Father
Kannengiesser compares the descriptions in the Acts of
the Apostles written by Luke himself with the description
of similar facts on Jesus raised from the dead by Paul,
he pronounces the following opinion on Luke: "Luke
is the most sensitive and literary of the four
evangelists, he has all the qualities of a true
novelist".
|
|
John's Gospel is radically different from the three
others; to such an extent indeed that Father Roguet in
his book Initiation to the Gospel (Initiation à l'Evangile), having commented on the other three,
immediately evokes a startling image for the fourth. He
calls it , different world'. It is indeed a unique book;
different in the arrangement and choice of subject,
description and speech; different in its style,
geography, chronology; there are even differences in
theological outlook (O. Culmann). Jesus's words are
therefore differently recorded by John from the other
evangelists: Father Roguet notes on this that whereas the
synoptics record Jesus's words in a style that is
"striking, much nearer to the oral style", in
John all is meditation; to such an extent indeed that
"one sometimes wonders if Jesus is still speaking or
whether His ideas have not imperceptibly been extended by
the Evangelist's own thoughts".
Who was the author? This is a highly debated question
and extremely varying opinions have been expressed on
this subject.
A. Tricot and Father Roguet belong to a camp that does
not have the slightest misgivings: John's Gospel is the
work of an eyewitness, its author is John, son of Zebedee
and brother of James. Many details are known about this
apostle and are set out in works for mass publication.
Popular iconography puts him near Jesus, as in the Last
Supper prior to the Passion. Who could imagine that
John's Gospel was not the work of John the Apostle whose
figure is so familiar?
The fact that the fourth Gospel was written so late is
not a serious argument against this opinion. The
definitive version was probably written around the end of
the First century A.D. To situate the time it was written
at sixty years after Jesus would be in keeping with an
apostle who was very young at the time of Jesus and who
lived to be almost a hundred.
Father Kannengiesser, in his study on the
Resurrection, arrives at the conclusion that none of the
New Testament authors, save Paul, can claim to have been
eyewitnesses to Jesus's Resurrection. John nevertheless
related the appearance to a number of the assembled
apostles, of which he was probably a member, in the
absence of Thomas (20,19-24), then eight days later to
the full group of apostles (20,25-29).
O. Culmann in his work The New Testament does
not subscribe to this view.
The Ecumenical Translation of the Bible states
that the majority of critics do not accept the hypothesis
that the Gospel was written by John, although this
possibility cannot be entirely ruled out. Everything
points however towards the fact that the text we know
today had several authors: "It is probable that the
Gospel as it stands today was put into circulation by the
author's disciples who added chapter 21 and very likely
several annotations (i.e. 4,2 and perhaps 4,1; 4,44;
7,37b; 11,2; 19,35). With regard to the story of the
adulterous woman (7,53-8,11), everyone agrees that it is
a fragment of unknown origin inserted later (but
nevertheless belonging to canonic Scripture)".
Passage 19,35 appears as a 'signature' of an 'eyewitness'
(O. Culmann), the only explicit signature in the whole of
John's Gospel; but commentators believe that it was
probably added later.
O. Culmann thinks that latter additions are obvious in
this Gospel; such as chapter 21 which is probably the
work of a "disciple who may well have made slight
alterations to the main body of the Gospel".
It is not necessary to mention all the hypotheses
suggested by experts in exegesis. The remarks recorded
here made by the most eminent Christian writers on the
questions of the authorship of the fourth Gospel are
sufficient to show the extent of the confusion reigning
on the subject of its authorship.
The historical value of John's stories has been
contested to a great extent. The discrepancy between them
and the other three Gospels is quite blatant. O. Culman
offers an explanation for this; he sees in John a
different theological point of view from the other
evangelists. This aim "directs the choice of stories
from the Logia [ Words.] recorded, as well as the way in which
they are reproduced . . . Thus the author often prolongs
the lines and makes the historical Jesus say what the
Holy Spirit Itself revealed to Him". This, for the
exegete in question, is the reason for the discrepancies.
It is of course quite conceivable that John, who was
writing after the other evangelists, should have chosen
certain stories suitable for illustrating his own
theories. One should not be surprised by the fact that
certain descriptions contained in the other Gospels are
missing in John. The Ecumenical Translation picks
out a certain number of such instances (page 282).
Certain gaps hardly seem credible however, like the fact
that the Institution of the Eucharist is not described.
It is unthinkable that an episode so basic to
Christianity, one indeed that was to be the mainstay of
its liturgy, i.e. the mass, should not be mentioned by
John, the most pre-eminently meditative evangelist. The
fact is, he limits himself, in the narrative of the
supper prior to the Passion, to simply describing the
washing of the disciples' feet, the prediction of Judas's
betrayal and Peter's denial.
In contrast to this, there are stories which are
unique to John and not present in the other three. The
Ecumenical Translation mentions these (page 283). Here
again, one could infer that the three authors did not see
the importance in these episodes that John saw in them.
It is difficult however not to be taken aback when one
finds in John a description of the appearance of Jesus raised
from the dead to his disciples beside the Sea of
Tiberias (John 21,1-14). The description is nothing less
than the reproduction (with numerous added details) of
the miracle catch of fish which Luke (5,1-11) presents as
an episode that occurred during Jesus's life. In
his description Luke alludes to the presence of the
Apostle John who, as tradition has it, was the
evangelist, Since this description in John's Gospel forms
part of chapter 21, agreed to be a later addition, one
can easily imagine that the reference to John's name in
Luke could have led to its artificial inclusion in the
fourth Gospel. The necessity of transforming a
description from Jesus's life to a posthumous description
in no way prevented the evangelical text from being
manipulated.
Another important point on which John's Gospel differs
from the other three is in the duration of Jesus's
mission. Mark, Matthew and Luke place it over a period of
one year. John spreads it over two years. O. Culmann
notes this fact. On this subject the Ecumenical
Translation expresses the following .
"The synoptics describe a long period in Galilee
followed by a march that was more or less prolonged
towards Judea, and finally a brief stay in Jerusalem.
John, on the other hand, describes frequent journeys from
one area to another and mentions a long stay in Judea,
especially in Jerusalem (1,19-51; 2,13-3,36; 5,1-47;
14,20-31). He mentions several Passover celebrations
(2,13; 5,1; 6,4; 11,55) and thus suggests a ministry that
lasted more than two years".
Which one of them should one believe-Mark, Matthew,
Luke or John?
|
|
The general outline that has been given here of the
Gospels and which emerges from a critical examination of
the texts tends to make one think of a literature which
is "disjointed, with a plan that lacks
continuity" and "seemingly insuperable
contradictions". These are the terms used in the
judgement passed on them by the commentators of the Ecumenical
Translation of the Bible. It is important to refer to
their authority because the consequences of an appraisal
of this subject are extremely serious. It has already
been seen how a few notions concerning the religious
history of the time when the Gospels were written helped
to explain certain disconcerting aspects of this
literature apparent to the thoughtful reader. It is
necessary to continue, however, and ascertain what
present-day works can tell us about the sources the
Evangelists drew on when writing their texts. It is also
interesting to see whether the history of the texts once
they were established can help to explain certain aspects
they present today.
The problem of sources was approached in a very
simplistic fashion at the time of the Fathers of the
Church. In the early centuries of Christianity, the only
source available was the Gospel that the complete
manuscripts provided first, i.e. Matthew's Gospel. The
problem of sources only concerned Mark and Luke because
John constituted a quite separate case. Saint Augustine
held that Mark, who appears second in the traditional
order of presentation, had been inspired by Matthew and
had summarized his work. He further considered that Luke,
who comes third in the manuscripts, had used data from
both; his prologue suggests this, and has already been
discussed.
The experts in exegesis at this period were as able as
we are to estimate the degree of corroboration between
the texts and find a large number of verses common to two
or three synoptics. Today, the commentators of the
Ecumenical Translation of the Bible provide the
following figures:
verses common to all three synoptics
-------------- 330
verses common to Mark and Matthew ------------ 178
verses common to Mark and Luke ----------------100
verses common to Matthew and Luke ------------ 230
The verses unique to each of the first three Gospels
are as follows: Matthew 330, Mark 53, and Luke 500.
From the Fathers of the Church until the end of the
Eighteenth century A.D., one and a half millenia passed
without any new problems being raised on the sources of
the evangelists: people continued to follow tradition. It
was not until modem times that it was realized, on the
basis of these data, how each evangelist had taken
material found in the others and compiled his own
specific narration guided by his own personal views.
Great weight was attached to actual collection of
material for the narration. It came from the oral
traditions of the communities from which it originated on
the one hand, and from a common written Aramaic source
that has not been rediscovered on the other. This written
source could have formed a compact mass or have been
composed of many fragments of different narrations used
by each evangelist to construct his own original work.
More intensive studies in circa the last hundred years
have led to theories which are more detailed and in time
will become even more complicated. The first of the modem
theories is the so-called 'Holtzmann Two Sources Theory',
(1863). O. Culmann and the Ecumenical Translation explain
that, according to this theory, Matthew and Luke may have
been inspired by Mark on the one hand and on the other by
a common document which has since been lost. The first
two moreover each had his own sources. This leads to the
following diagram:
Mark
Common
Document
M. E. BOISMARD
SYNOPSIS OF THE FOUR GOSPELS [1]
GENERAL DIAGRAM
(1) Synopse des quatre Evangiles
Culmann criticises the above on the following points:
1. Mark's work, used by both Luke and Matthew, was
probably not the author's Gospel but an earlier version.
2. The diagram does not lay enough emphasis on the
oral tradition. This appears to be of paramount
importance because it alone preserved Jesus's words and
the descriptions of his mission during a period of thirty
or forty years, as each of the Evangelists was only the
spokesman for the Christian community which wrote down
the oral tradition.
This is how it is possible to conclude that the
Gospels we possess today are a reflection of what the
early Christian communities knew of Jesus's life and
ministry. They also mirror their beliefs and theological
ideas, of which the evangelists were the spokesmen.
The latest studies in textual criticism on the sources
of the Gospels have clearly shown an even more
complicated formation process of the texts. A book by
Fathers Benoit and Boismard, both professors at the
Biblical School of Jerusalem (1972-1973), called the Synopsis
of the Four Gospels (Synopse des quatres Evangiles)
stresses the evolution of the text in stages parallel to
the evolution of the tradition. This implies the
conquences set out by Father Benoit in his introduction
to Father Boismard's part of the work. He presents them
in the following terms:
"(. . .) the wording and form of description
that result from a long evolution of tradition are
not as authentic as in the original. some readers of
this work will perhaps be surprised or embarrassed to
learn that certain of Jesus's sayings, parables, or
predictions of His destiny were not expressed in the
way we read them today, but were altered and adapted
by those who transmitted them to us. This may come as
a source of amazement and even scandal to those not
used to this kind of historical investigation."
The alterations and adaptations to the texts made by
those transmitting them to us were done in a way that
Father Boismard explains by means of a highly complex
diagram. It is a development of the so-called 'Two
Sources Theory', and is the product of examination and
comparison of the texts which it is not possible to
summarize here. Those readers who are interested in
obtaining further details should consult the original
work published by Les Editions du Cerf, Paris.
Four basic documents-A, B, C and Q-represent the
original sources of the Gospels (see general diagram).
Page 76.
Document A comes from a Judeo-Christian source.
Matthew and Mark were inspired by it.
Document B is a reinterpretation of document A, for
use in Pagan-cum-Christian churches: all the
evangelists were inspired by it except Matthew.
Document C inspired Mark, Luke and John.
Document Q constitutes the majority of sources common
to Matthew and Luke; it is the , Common Document' in
the 'Two Sources' theory referred to earlier.
None of these basic documents led to the production of
the definitive texts we know today. Between them and the
final version lay the intermediate versions: Intermediate
Matthew, Intermediate Mark, Intermediate Luke and
Intermediate John. These four intermediate documents were
to lead to the final versions of the four Gospels, as
well as to inspire the final corresponding versions of
other Gospels. One only has to consult the diagram to see
the intricate relationships the author has revealed.
The results of this scriptural research are of great
importance. They show how the Gospel texts not only have
a history (to be discussed later) but also a
'pre-history', to use Father Boismard's expression. What
is meant is that before the final versions appeared, they
underwent alterations at the Intermediate Document stage.
Thus it is possible to explain, for example, how a
well-known story from Jesus's life, such as the miracle
catch of fish, is shown in Luke to be an event that
happened during His life, and in John to be one of His
appearances after His Resurrection.
The conclusion to be drawn from the above is that when
we read the Gospel, we can no longer be at all sure that
we are reading Jesus's word. Father Benoit addresses
himself to the readers of the Gospel by warning them and
giving them the following compensation: "If the
reader is obliged in more than one case to give up the
notion of hearing Jesus's voice directly, he still hears
the voice of the Church and he relies upon it as the
divinely appointed interpreter of the Master who long ago
spoke to us on earth and who now speaks to us in His
glory".
How can one reconcile this formal statement of the
inauthenticity of certain texts with the phrase used in
the dogmatic constitution on Divine Revelation by the
Second Vatican Council assuring us to the contrary, i.e.
the faithful transmission of Jesus's words: "These
four Gospels, which it (the Church) unhesitatingly
confirms are historically authentic, faithfully transmit
what Jesus, Son of God, actually did and taught during
his life among men for their eternal salvation, until the
day when he was taken up into the heavens"?
It is quite clear that the work of the Biblical School
of Jerusalem flatly contradicts the Council's
declaration.
|
|
One would be mistaken in thinking that once the
Gospels were written they constituted the basic
Scriptures of the newly born Christianity and that people
referred to them the same way they referred to the Old
Testament. At that time, the foremost authority was the
oral tradition as a vehicle for Jesus's words and the
teachings of the apostles. The first writings to
circulate were Paul's letters and they occupied a
prevalent position long before the Gospels. They were,
after all, written several decades earlier.
It has already been shown, that contrary to what
certain commentators are still writing today, before 140
A.D. there was no witness to the knowledge that a
collection of Gospel writings existed. It was not until
circa 170 A.D. that the four Gospels acquired the status
of canonic literature.
In the early days of Christianity, many writings on
Jesus were in circulation. They were not subsequently
retained as being worthy of authenticity and the Church
ordered them to be hidden, hence their name 'Apocrypha'.
Some of the texts of these works have been well preserved
because they "benefitted from the fact that they
were generally valued", to quote the Ecumenical
Translation. The same was true for the Letter of
Barnabas, but unfortunately others were "more
brutally thrust aside" and only fragments of them
remain. They were considered to be the messengers of
error and were removed from the sight of the faithful.
Works such as the Gospels of the Nazarenes, the Gospels
of the Hebrews and the Gospels of the Egyptians, known
through quotations taken from the Fathers of the Church,
were nevertheless fairly closely related to the canonic
Gospels. The same holds good for Thomas's Gospel and
Barnabas's Gospel.
Some of these apocryphal writings contain imaginary
details, the product of popular fantasy. Authors of works
on the Apocrypha also quote with obvious satisfaction
passages which are literally ridiculous. Passages such as
these are however to be found in all the Gospels.
One has only to think of the imaginary description of
events that Matthew claims took place at Jesus's death.
It is possible to find passages lacking seriousness in
all the early writings of Christianity: One must be
honest enough to admit this.
The abundance of literature concerning Jesus led the
Church to make certain excisions while the latter was in
the process of becoming organized. Perhaps a hundred
Gospels were suppressed. Only four were retained and put
on the official list of neo-Testament writings making up
what is called the 'Canon'.
In the middle of the Second century A.D., Marcion of
Sinope put heavy pressure on the ecclesiastic authorities
to take a stand on this. He was an ardent enemy of the
Jews and at that time rejected the whole of the Old
Testament and everything in writings produced after Jesus
that seemed to him too close to the Old Testament or to
come from the Judeo-Christian tradition. Marcion only
acknowledged the value of Luke's Gospel because, he
believed Luke to be the spokesman of Paul and his
writings.
The Church declared Marcion a heretic and put into its
canon all the Letters of Paul, but included the other
Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. They also added
several other works such as the Acts of the Apostles. The
official list nevertheless varies with time during the
first centuries of Christianity. For a while, works that
were later considered not to be valid (i.e. Apocrypha)
figured in it, while other works contained in today's New
Testament Canon were excluded from it at this time. These
hesitations lasted until the Councils of Hippo Regius in
393 and Carthage in 397. The four Gospels always figured
in it however.
One may join Father Boismard in regretting the
disappearance of a vast quantity of literature declared
apocryphal by the Church although it was of historical
interest. The above author indeed gives it a place in his
Synopsis of the Four Gospels alongside that of the
official Gospels. He notes that these books still existed
in libraries near the end of the Fourth century A.D.
This was the century that saw things put into serious
order. The oldest manuscripts of the Gospels date from
this period. Documents prior to this, i.e. papyri from
the Third century A.D. and one possibly dating from the
Second, only transmit fragments to us. The two oldest
parchment manuscripts are Greek, Fourth century A.D. They
are the Codex Vaticanus, preserved in the Vatican
Library and whose place of discovery is unknown, and the
Codex Sinaiticus, which was discovered on Mount Sinai and
is now preserved in the British Museum, London. The
second contains two apocryphal works.
According to the Ecumenical Translation, two hundred
and fifty other known parchments exist throughout the
world, the last of these being from the Eleventh century
A.D. "Not all the copies of the New Testament that
have come down to us are identical" however.
"On the contrary, it is possible to distinguish
differences of varying degrees of importance between
them, but however important they may be, there is always
a large number of them. Some of these only concern
differences of grammatical detail, vocabulary or word
order. Elsewhere however, differences between manuscripts
can be seen which affect the meaning of whole
passages". If one wishes to see the extent of
textual differences, one only has to glance through the Novum
Testamentum Graece. [Nestlé-Aland Pub. United Bible Societies, London,
1971] This
work contains a so-called 'middle-of-the-road' Greek
text. It is a text of synthesis with notes containing all
the variations found in the different versions.
The authenticity of a text, and of even the most
venerable manuscript, is always open to debate. The Codex
Vaticanus is a good example of this. The facsimile
reproductions edited by the Vatican City, 1965, contains
an accompanying note from its editors informing us that
"several centuries after it was copied (believed to
have been in circa the Tenth or Eleventh century), a
scribe inked over all the letters except those he thought
were a mistake". There are passages in the text
where the original letters in light brown still show
through, contrasting visibly with the rest of the text
which is in dark brown. There is no indication that it
was a faithful restoration. The note states moreover that
"the different hands that corrected and annotated
the manuscript over the centuries have not yet been
definitively discerned; a certain number of corrections
were undoubtedly made when the text was inked over."
In all the religious manuals the text is presented as a
Fourth century copy. One has to go to sources at the
Vatican to discover that various hands may have altered
the text centuries later.
One might reply that other texts may be used for
comparison, but how does one choose between variations
that change the meaning? It is a well known fact that a
very old scribe's correction can lead to the definitive
reproduction of the corrected text. We shall see further
on how a single word in a passage from John concerning
the Paraclete radically alters its meaning and completely
changes its sense when viewed from a theological point of
view.
O. Culmann, in his book, The New Testament,
writes the following on the subject of variations:
"Sometimes the latter are the result of
inadvertant flaws: the copier misses a word out, or
conversely writes it twice, or a whole section of a
sentence is carelessly omitted because in the manuscript
to be copied it appeared between two identical words.
Sometimes it is a matter of deliberate corrections,
either the copier has taken the liberty of correcting the
text according to his own ideas or he has tried to bring
it into line with a parallel text in a more or less
skilful attempt to reduce the number of discrepancies.
As, little by little, the New Testament writings broke
away from the rest of early Christian literature, and
came to be regarded as Holy Scripture, so the copiers
became more and more hesitant about taking the same
liberties as their predecessors: they thought they were
copying the authentic text, but in fact wrote down the
variations. Finally, a copier sometimes wrote annotations
in the margin to explain an obscure passage. The
following copier, thinking that the sentence he found in
the margin had been left out of the passage by his
predecessor, thought it necessary to include the margin
notes in the text. This process often made the new text
even more obscure."
The scribes of some manuscripts sometimes took
exceedingly great liberties with the texts. This is the
case of one of the most venerable manuscripts after the
two referred to above, the Sixth century Codex Bezae
Cantabrigiensis. The scribe probably noticed the
difference between Luke's and Matthew's genealogy of
Jesus, so he put Matthew's genealogy into his copy of
Luke, but as the second contained fewer names than the
first, he padded it out with extra names (without
balancing them up).
Is it possible to say that the Latin translations,
such as Saint Jerome's Sixth century Vulgate, or older
translations (Vetus Itala), or Syriac and Coptic
translations are any more faithful than the basic Greek
manuscripts? They might have been made from manuscripts
older than the ones referred to above and subsequently
lost to the present day. We just do not know.
It has been possible to group the bulk of these
versions into families all bearing a certain number of
common traits. According to O. Culmann, one can define:
 |
a so-called Syrian text, whose constitution could have
led to the majority of the oldest Greek manuscripts; this
text was widely disseminated throughout Europe from the
Sixteenth century A.D. onwards thanks to printing. the
specialists say that it is probably the worst text. |
|
a so-called Western text, with old Latin versions and
the Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis which is in both
Greek and Latin; according to the Ecumenical Translation,
one of its characteristics is a definite tendency to
provide explanations, paraphrases, inaccurate data and 'harmonizations'. |
|
the so-called Neutral text, containing the Codex
Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus, is said to
have a fairly high level of purity; modern editions of
the New Testament readily follow it, although it too has
its flaws (Ecumenical Translation). |
All that modern textual criticism can do in this
respect is to try and reconstitute "a text which has
the most likelihood of coming near to the original. In
any case, there can be no hope of going back to the
original text itself." (Ecumenical Translation)
|
| |
|
