How the Historical Information Has Been Interwoven with Theology - Essay Example

The historical information has been interwoven with theology. Each of the gospel writers was writing an historical narrative although they vary in their starting points. The three synoptic gospels could be said to fit the theology into the history, while John does the reverse and fits in the historic narrative around the theological points he is seeking to put across. Matthew begins with genealogy, starting with Abraham, so he puts the facts firmly down before really exploring any theological ideas. It is Matthew 1 and verse 18 before we get the idea of a divine incarnation, but even so he claims to write the genealogy of ‘Jesus Christ, the son of David’(Matthew 1 v 1 Revised Standard Version) i.e. a kingly Messiah as expected by the Jews. Mark is shorter, sharper. Believed to be Peter’s eye witness account for the most part it is a rapid description of events – this happened and that happened and that happened. Huge chunks of Mark are of course included by Matthew and Luke who wrote later. Mark is very much a reporter, but nevertheless he writes about what he, and Peter, believed and so we have in Mark 1 ‘The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.’ He goes on to justify this statement by bringing in a quote from Isaiah about a forerunner, (John the Baptist) and very quickly, by verse 9, we are into the beginning of the ministry of Jesus and right at the beginning of this very factual report we have mention of the cosmic struggle between good and evil, Mark 1 v 9 to 13. Luke takes a little longer to get into his stride as we have the story of the miraculous birth of John first, before the story of the birth of Jesus and of his childhood. However a quick look at margin notes reveals many Old Testament references e.g. the song of Simeon quotes Isaiah, ‘A light for revelation to the Gentiles.’ John is often perceived as a much more spiritual gospel than the others. It was of course written much later, most probably at around the end of the 1st century C.E. when theological ideas had had time to develop. Unlike Luke, who states his purpose right at the beginning of his narrative as writing an orderly account, John waits until almost the very end - John 20 v 30 and 31, before explaining that the signs ( or miracles ) he has written about are only some of the things that happened, ‘but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.’ This links back to John 3 v 16. Here in the historical recounting of Jesus’ meeting with Nicodemus we have a huge theological point – that Jesus is the son of the loving God, who, through him, will save those who believe in him, and then, quite abruptly, we turn in verse 22 to pure description – ‘After this Jesus and the disciples went….’ Each of the evangelists tries to answer the same question ‘Who is Jesus?’ Although they gave the same answer we see that they did it in different ways. Each records the life of the same man, they cover many of the same events, but because their own backgrounds and purposes are slightly different the records are different. Matthew’s is the most Jewish of the gospels, setting the stories against a background of Jewish history and prophecy. It connects Jesus firmly with the God of the Old Testament . There is great emphasis on what Jesus taught, as in the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5, 6, and 7. Mark was set down at a time of great disruption. People were dying for their faith. Peter did not know how much time he had left so it has an almost breathless quality as they try to record as plainly as possible the events they had witnessed. One third of the book concerns the last week of Jesus’ earthly ministry. It is the gospel in which Jesus is recognised as ‘Son of God’ by a gentile – the centurion at the crucifixion – Mark 15 v 39 and also includes the instruction’ Go into the whole world and preach the gospel to the whole creation’ – the message is for everyone. Luke is the only Gentile author that we know of in the New Testament. Also he does not claim to have personally witnessed any of the events he recorded. This of course gives him a different perspective on events. Jesus is received as ‘ a light for revelation to the Gentiles’ ( Luke 2 verse 32 and the genealogy he gives, (Luke 3 v 23 – 38) goes even further back than Matthew’s does – right back through Adam to God . He wanted to show that Christianity had as much right to recognition in the Roman world as Judaism had. – page 472, Oxford Companion to the Bible. He is also a doctor, (Colossians 4 v 14) and as such a man of science rather than theology we would think. He relates his story to history, and Roman history in particular, as when his birth narrative is linked to a decree of Caesar Augustus. Nevertheless the theology is there – the miraculous birth, Luke 1 and 2, the close relationship with his heavenly father, Luke 3 v 22, the miracles done under the power of the Holy Spirit, Luke 4 v 18, and of course the resurrection and ascension. Luke 24. Luke’s lack of first hand knowledge might seem a huge disadvantage, but don’t historians and reporters do the same every day? His prologue reveals that he relied on eye witnesses and aimed to write an accurate account. John is concerned with the signs that point towards who Jesus is. He places the cosmic struggle even earlier in his book – John 1 v 5 ‘The light shines in the darkness and the darkness has not overcome it,’ but even before that he has Jesus as creator, before time began. This was much more than most Jews expected from a messiah. They looked for a saviour, for many this was to be a military leader who would rescue them from the Romans, rather than a purely spiritual leader. But for John Jesus is very much God as man – John 1 v 14 , ‘The word became flesh and dwelt among us.’ Only after all these theological blockbusters does he bring the story down to the world of time with the testimony of John in verse 19 and following, and in place – Bethany beyond the Jordon. But even here the words have theological implications ‘Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.’ And so it continues throughout the gospel. John records great wedges of teaching, but rather than to crowds of people in general as in Matthew, Jesus is speaking to his chosen companions in the upper room – John 13 to 17, but not them only . Future believers are included. – ‘I pray not for them only, but for those who believe in me through their word. John 17 v 20 ‘ Like Matthew and Peter, through Mark, he claims to be an eyewitness – John 21 v 24 ‘This is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things and who has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true.’ The usual claim is that there was no census at the time of the nativity. But this is a proof by absence i.e. the fact that we don’t know about it doesn’t mean there wasn’t one. I don’t know what Elizabeth the1st had for breakfast on the morning of her ascension to the throne – but that doesn’t mean she went hungry, merely that we don’t have the records if there were any. Many have tried to disprove the historical accuracy of the gospels. Others, claiming to be theologians, historians or both, just assume they aren’t true. But when at least the first three gospels were written and circulated there were many alive who could have denied their validity, but they didn’t. John almost certainly wrote later, when he was a great age, but even then there would have been those who could deny the truth of his words if they weren’t true. Even the resurrection –the Jewish authorities might well have been expected to produce a body – any body, in order to disprove the claims of the disciples and other followers to have seen a risen Jesus. But they didn’t. There were other gospels circulating in the early years of the church, some of them were Gnostic in nature, i.e. special teaching for the few, such as the Gospel of Thomas which begins ‘These are the hidden sayings of Jesus’ The four gospels that are included in scripture are there because they have a story to tell. They are the ones most widely read and accepted as true and as of value by the church. None of the original manuscripts exist, but they were copied and copied and copied because people loved to read them. Yet in comparison with other ancient texts, the writings of Virgil for instance, the earliest copies that we do have are far closer in time to the events than in other pagan documents.(The Cambridge History of Bible, page 28) For the earliest church the only Bible that they had was the Old Testament , but gradually newer Christian writings came to be considered to be on a par with it. And so the New Testament gradually assumed its now familiar form – the books included were considered helpful, they measured up to the doctrines accepted by believers, and they were in some way connected with the apostles. Jesus once asked ‘Who do you say that I am?’ Simon Peter answered ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.’ He believed it and so did the gospel writers. As far as they were concerned this man who lived in history was God beyond all time and space – theology and history combined in one person. Bibliography All Bible quotes are from the Revised Standard Version, Eyre and Spottiswood Study Bible, Zonderavean Publishing, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1965 Metzger, Bruce and Coogan ,Micheal editors,‘The Oxford Companion to the Bible’ Oxford University Press 1993 Lampe,G.W.H.,editor, ‘The Cambridge History of the Bible.’Cambridge University Press, 1969 Read More