• Recent Entries
• Archives (By Date)
• Archives (By Tag)

The Gospels and Canonical Inclusion

Posted on 2006-09-14 at 07:48

Abstract
Concerning the decisions which led to the inclusion of the four gospels currently found in the New Testament.

Paper
In their attempt to canonize the new covenant of Christ, it is profoundly important that Christians utilize those works extant that will most closely intimate the teachings and life of Jesus, the Messiah, and as there are no known written works whose authorship can be directly attributed to Jesus, Christianity must search elsewhere for source information concerning his word and deed; thus for this reason Christianity looks to the various Gospels. Sources other than the Gospels exist and are viable as references to the Christian doctrine in their own various ways; however, since each classification of source would merit its own separate essay, this essay will concentrate on the Gospel genre by discussing the concept of the Gospel, arguing for a Gospel inclusion into the New Testament, and positing a rationale for determining which Gospels should become canonical.

Gospels are as diverse and varied as the people who write them---each having its own unique emphases and style; nevertheless, there are certain universal qualities which characterize and classify them as Gospels. Scholarly opinion is divided on several fine points as to what specifically defines a Gospel. Some see the Gospels primarily as forms of biographies of Jesus Christ while others regard them as having much more to do with the statement of the good news of salvation through Christ, however, a middle ground is more likely to be the case. The Gospel genre of writing steps beyond simple storytelling and the manifesto of religious aphorisms and coalesces into an admixture of the two---the combination of a biographical narrative and a religious ethos. Having established what a Gospel essentially is, one must next consider what reasoning is there to include this genre of writing in a religious text at all.

Christianity is a religion based on both the Old Testament canon and the teachings of Jesus Christ and as such it becomes eminently important to gather detailed information concerning the life and teachings of Jesus. Since Jesus was not an author, the only sources of knowledge on these matters are found in the writings of others closely associated with the man himself and most of these writings were not meant be to used as religious text, such as those official Roman documents and other non-Jewish/Christian texts that reference Jesus and the Christian movement. The Gospels, much like Paul's letters, were set forth as true and proper accounts of what it was to know Jesus and his way. Several documents in the New Testament can give the careful reader an understanding of the Christian doctrine, yet none but the Gospels discuss the man, through his words and deeds, who pioneered these principles. If a person wished to learn about Plato, he would ask Socrates or another close associate (that is, of course, only if Plato, himself, were not available to respond), he would, rightfully, not assume that the random Grecian citizen would be capable of holding a meaningful conversation on the subject unless he were in some manner familiar with Plato. So it is with Jesus as well that one cannot expect to learn about Christianity without drawing knowledge from those persons familiar with Christ. Any other method would produce misinformation, misunderstanding, and possibly a biased or skewed view of the subject of the investigation. Therefore, it can be concluded that to best understand Jesus Christ in his role as founder of the Christian religion a careful study of his life and teachings must be undertaking and the Gospels, which as a rule lay claim to an "inside track" on these events, are the obvious best choice. The Christian community is now left with the decision as to which Gospel or Gospels are to be accepted and which are to be denied canonical status.

There are two logical and opposite paths which can be taken at this point. In this paper, they shall be referred to as the Marcionian and the Tatian perspectives. The Marcionian perspective involves the acceptance of one Gospel as the binding truth and denies all other Gospels this standing. More specifically Marcion, himself, was partial to the Gospel of Luke. His position on the subject of Gospel inclusion was that with only one Gospel as official scripture the critics who cite Gospel confliction as a sign of religious falsity could be more easily combated. His hypothesis is correct in that with only one official story of the life and words of Jesus, there would be no internal conflict, and it should be noted that for this purpose, the Gospel of Luke makes an excellent choice since it is Luke who seems to be not only an excellent writer of Greek text but who also lends a historical perspective to the life of Jesus and, unlike other Gospel authors, has written a sequel which is called the book of Acts. Choosing this Gospel allows the Christian church to portray Jesus as something other than a mythic and non-existent leader; it puts Jesus into a setting which can be identified and is familiar to the average reader. It further allows the church to show, through the continuity of the Gospel and Acts literature, a link between Jesus Christ and the development of the early church. All these things together bring Jesus into focus as a real person who lived and influenced the lives of his many Christian followers which has the effect of staving off the critics who would use inconsistency and source reliability as an attack against the early Christian church. It is also possible that Marcion was simply following Paul's lead by proclaiming the righteousness of only one gospel. Paul consistently refers to the Gospel of Christ in the singular and has stated his belief in Galatians 1:7 that there is only one Gospel. Paul's system of thought has been quite influential in the current theology of the Christian church and if Marcion wanted to follow Paul's example, he would have to conform appropriately. It cannot be denied that Marcion had many good reasons for choosing the position he did.

The Tatian perspective falls on the opposing end of the Gospel inclusion spectrum with a belief in using many different Gospels as canonical sources for information about Jesus. According to this perspective, these source Gospels would be reviewed, evaluated and, after gaining a clearer idea of the truth of Jesus' life, synthesized into a single cohesive Gospel. Tatian has done this in his work, the Diatessaron, by using the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; some would also claim that he was influenced by other Gospels as well. His theory involved the belief that multiple portraits of the same thing must, by the simple law of common sense, be intrinsically better than relying on a single portrait. The multiple portraits would give the examiner a more thorough picture of the object portrayed. However, he, like Marcion, was concerned about the apparent inconsistencies in the various Gospels and how that may look to the critic---or worse, to the prospective Christian---thus for clarity's sake, Tatian chose to compose a new Gospel, the aforementioned Diatessaron, based strictly on the extant Gospels and thus merge the various portraits into a fused whole which would be as internally consistent as the canon proposed by Marcion.

There is yet another popular opinion on the subject which has been set forth most eloquently by a Bishop of Lyons, Irenaeus, who said that there is only one legitimate Gospel of Christ, but four worthy literary shapes which the Gospel has taken. He was referring to the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John which, by his day, had come into common use. This new perspective seems to be more pragmatic, in that it accepts Paul's notion that Jesus' true Gospel can only be singular, for he did not live multiple lives, but also recognizes that different people will recall and interpret the events in different ways. This notion seems the most sensible of the three options mentioned thus far for several reasons. Firstly, in the Marcionian perspective, the reader is expected to gain a clear and comprehensive understanding of the life and teachings of Jesus with only one witness to rely upon. Though Luke may have been a devoted Christian, his Gospel, just as with the other Gospels, emphasizes those aspects of the Word that he wanted emphasized; thorough as it may be, his Gospel is not all-inclusive and never claims to be. Secondly, the Tatian perspective requires that a person should, after careful study, pick-and-choose which parts should stay, which should go, which are right, and which are not. This might be acceptable if that editor were someone who had lived with and followed Jesus, but it is wholly impossible at this late date to find a candidate with the ability to meet this criterion. Anyone editing the Gospels at this point could not do so with any degree of assurity and the finished product could no more be counted upon for accuracy than the sources from which it was derived. It seems that, to Irenaeus, obtaining the truth about Jesus was deemed more important than the defensibility of the canonical Gospels. Ireneaus' perspective, it seems, welcomes the inconsistencies that the two previous perspectives denounced by accepting them as natural variations that arise when different artists paint the same scene. Ireneaus expects and accepts this, and furthermore, he seems to prefer this. One portrait may show something about the scene that the other portrait does not. This is the beauty of difference---to make the scene complete. So, while no single perspective can be said to be absolutely correct in all ways, it seems that Ireneaus provides Christianity with the most sensible solution to the dilemma---canonize several different versions of the Gospel of Jesus and thus gain the benefit of many different views on his life and teachings.

The enormous task which now lies ahead is the determination of which Gospels to canonize. While there have been over 30 Gospels discovered to date, not all Gospels are suitable for canonization and for this reason Christians must be selective in choosing which ones to accept as "official" reference to the life of Christ and the doctrine he taught. A set of criteria must be developed to filter what enters into the New Testament. Based on earlier discussions in this paper, one can deduce that the first piece of criterion should be some form of association with Jesus or his direct disciples since any further distancing from the subject of the Gospel will be reflected in the Gospel writing itself. This first piece of criterion narrows the list dramatically to the following Gospels; Matthew, John, Mark, Luke, Thomas, James, Peter, and Philip. Of these remaining Gospels, several stand out as not having one or more of the familiar elements of traditional Gospel-genre writings. The Gospel of Thomas, which claims to contain the "secret words" given to Didymos Judas Thomas by Jesus, is a collection of sayings, typically beginning with "Jesus said...", does not discuss, in more than an inadvertent manner through sayings associated with events, the life of Jesus making this a less than satisfactory source for learn about the life of Jesus. The Gospel of James also proves not to be up to the task of retelling the story of Christ's life due to its engrossment in the discussion of Mary's birth and the subsequent virgin birth of Jesus. Further, James does not substantially delve into the teachings of the Messiah nor his death on the cross---a major theme of other Gospels as shall soon be discussed. The Gospel of Peter, which we possess only in part, seems closer to the traditional Gospel style; however, the text we have is short and contains only the account of Jesus' persecution on the cross while omitting, due to lost manuscript, the majority of his life and teachings. One point of note here is the unusual resurrection scene presented by Peter. He describes a heavenly host descending from heaven to spirit away the raised Jesus and all this is done within plain sight of the guards of his tomb. This account differs so substantially from the other discussions of the resurrection that, had we the full text of the Gospel of Peter, it still might not be included in the canon. The Gospel of Philip, discovered in the same collection as the Gospel of Thomas, is written in proper Gnostic fashion. The Gnostics tended to believe that true knowledge could not come from the written word, but only through the "living speech" according to Ireneaus in his work Against Heresies (3:1-3) and thus the Gospel of Philip is written not as a biography or a discussion of doctrine, but as a text on meditative ideas and symbolic gesturing which can best be explained through example as follows:

This type of mystic interpretive language is not typical of the Gospel genre and, in addition to this, the Gospel of Philip does not discuss the life of Jesus. Some might argue that it does not even correctly reflect the teachings of the man.

Having disqualified all but the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, a discussion of their relative merits must be entered into. Of the remaining Gospels, it is now generally believed that the Gospels of Matthew and John were not written by apostles, as once believed, and Luke and Mark, contrary to the original idea, may not have been associated with the apostles either. So why then should they still be considered for canonical acceptance? Because they are the earliest known accounts of the life of Jesus and therefore are more reliable than other later Gospels. Still, it seems logical that if indeed these four Gospels are not as closely related as one might have otherwise thought, a closer look at the quality of their reliability and their use to the average Christian reader should be obtained. Certain questions must be answered before including them into the New Testament. Do they serve a purpose? What purpose do they serve? Are they reasonably true to the word of Jesus? And finally, taken together, is this group of Gospels going to provide the Christian church with a well-rounded view of the wisdom which Jesus preached and lived by as well as the message which Jesus brought with him and intended for his followers to spread? To answer these questions, an in-depth examination of these Gospels will be undertaken.

The inclusion of the Gospel of Matthew would serve a multitude of purposes. Beyond being a reasonably accurate portrayal of the life of Jesus, inasmuch as can be determined by modern scholarly exegesis, Matthew paints a picture of Jesus' deeds and words which grounds them firmly in the known Judaic history with a strong emphasis on Old Testament law which he is careful to explain that Jesus proclaims it to be correct and binding as exemplified in Matthew 5:17. It is noteworthy that there are instances when Jesus does side against the Old Testament law. He is shown to do so three times in Matthew 5:31-43; however, this is the exception and not the rule as adduced by the many times in which the Gospel of Matthew tells us that Jesus defends the Judaic laws. Moreover, Jesus is seen as a fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy in Matthew 2:15 and 8:17. Matthew seems to distill his image of Christ and his teaching through Old Testament prophecy and doctrine which has the effect of giving Christianity a history or perhaps arguing that it already had one in conjunction with the Jews---something which many Christians and most Jews did not acknowledge. The popular layman opinion was that Christianity was a new religion and this rationale was used as a basis for attack and prejudice on the newly formed Christian community. Matthew shows that Christianity has a religious history and it is the Jews which have diverged from the faith, not the other way around.

The Gospel of Mark is perhaps less factually accurate, though not unacceptably so, than the four other Gospels being discussed and this is where its weakness lies. This is evidenced by the severe redaction seen in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke4 which are widely believed to be derivative works of the Gospel of Mark which was written years before any other Gospel. Mark's Gospel seems to have an emphasis on the pre-resurrection teachings of Jesus which stands in contrast to Paul's letters which demonstrate a profound interest in the theology of Jesus' death at the cross and his subsequent resurrection. Again a quandry is presented and the reader, who is most likely going to be familiar with Paul and his importance to the theology of the Christian church, might be inclined to find the common message or central theme present in both. Nevertheless, in doing so, the reader detracts from the richness of diversity in the portraits of Jesus. Mark may not be in total agreement with Paul or other prominent theologians as to the particular emphasis of Jesus' teachings but he certainly does not deny the significance of the theology of the cross. Here also lies its hidden strength. While Mark does not entirely accurately depict the events of Jesus' life it is only due to his emphasis on the works of Jesus and not geographical or chronological accuracy. As examples of this emphasis, one can turn to the many references to Jesus' miracles (Mark 1:25, 1:41, 2:11, 3:5, 4:39, 6:41-42, and over 10 other direct references to miracle acts.) and suffering (Mark 8:31, 9:30-31, 10:33-34 as well as the entire account of the crucifixion and torturous death of Jesus.) and the lessons to be learned therefrom. Mark, unlike some apocryphic Gospel authors, does not discuss miracles for their own sake but instead discusses them as they pertain to what Jesus taught. In this Gospel, the reader gains a clear idea of Jesus as a human, without denying his divine significance, whose example is shown as an inspiration to all.

Luke's expertly crafted Gospel brings history into the Christian picture, albeit in a far different manner than Matthew. Rather than concentrating on the history of Christianity, Luke concentrates on the Christianity in history. He uses real-world events and places to create a "stage" which will be recognizable to the Christian and non-Christian reader and thereby places Christianity in the firm position of fact, showing these depicted stories as having actually occurred, and pulls it out of the realm of fantasy and imagined mythology. By referencing other events and associating them chronologically to Gospel events, he gives Christianity its reality. Take, as an example, the following passage from the Gospel of Luke:

Here Luke depicts the story of John receiving the word of God, yet before discussing the story itself, he paints an explicit picture of when and where this took place and goes further to discuss John's lineage so as to place him wholly in a setting which the typical reader will identify and accept, thus making it far easier for that reader to accept the story itself.

At this point, one might conclude that the Christian community could gain a reasonably clear understanding of Jesus' life and teachings with just the above three mentioned Gospels and they would be correct. The Gospel of John deviates from the standard Gospel genre ever so slightly---but meaningfully. It is feasible to postulate that, since John is believed to have been written last of the four main Gospels discussed herein, he recognized that the events of Jesus' life had been satisfactorily retold and therefore chose a fresh approach to the discussion of Jesus. He does tell the story of Jesus' life, for if he did not we might have some difficulty calling his work a Gospel, and yet his story takes on an entirely different significance. Some philologists have speculated that the Gospel of John is as different from the other Gospels as the Gospel of Mark was from previous Christian writings about Jesus. True or otherwise, John's work seems to have built upon the Gospel genre, improving it, rather than breaking away from it as Mark did from the earlier Christian documents and so John can still stand as a form of Gospel. Having established this, the discussion must turn to its proposed merits as a canonical Gospel. Many have said that John wrote a sort of "fill-in-the-blank" Gospel in that he speaks about those aspects of Jesus' life which are not discussed in the other Gospels. Found in the Gospel of John are many events that cannot be found in other Gospels but still possess a significance. Examples include Jesus' meeting with Nicodemus in John 3:1-21, the scene described in John 11:35 of Jesus weeping at the tomb of Lazarus before resurrecting him, and the discourse with the Samaritan at the well in Sychar in John 4:7-26. This Gospel seems to contain an interesting synthesis of the Hebraeistic and the Hellenistic philosophies of the time. John's use of the Logos idea was distinctly a Greek-influenced thought and he often referred to the enemies of Jesus as the "Jews." At the same time, however, though his use of the Logos was Greek-influenced, it was originated in the Old Testament book of Genesis as were many ideas he put forth. His Hebraeistic belief in God was naturally modified by his Grecian worldview and background giving him a distinctly unique perspective on the teachings of Christ which the other Gospel authors did not possess. John's Gospel helps to define what Jesus' relationship was with respect to the Jewish-Christian faith. He alone discusses Jesus as "the way" and "the light" and shows Christ to be the path to salvation.

The four Gospels discussed above give the reader an excellently well-rounded portrayal of Jesus, the man, the teacher, the Christ, and the way. They show the Christian community, with Matthew, that through Jesus, it is grounded firmly in the Judaic past and is not an upstart cult with no true meaningfulness. They show the Christian community, with Mark, that Jesus' teachings are to be used as an example for community. Mark also shows us Jesus' divinity and his humanity through the stories of his miracles and suffering. The Gospels further show the Christian community, with Luke, that it has a reality and concreteness which serves to fortify a faith in the stories to the reader. And finally, the Gospels show the Christian community, with John, the theological importance of the Christ figure as represented by Jesus. These Gospels do have their differences, but also they have their similarities. All of them concentrate on the teachings and life of Jesus and how that relates the Christian community to God and not just sayings or dissertations on theology. All of them accept the importance of Jesus' death at the cross for mankind's sins. All of them accept Jesus as the true messiah as expected in Old Testament prophecy. So it is seen that four portraits from differing angles do in fact give the observer a fuller and more complete rendering on the scene. These Gospels should be canonical due to the merits of what each one, individually, can teach the reader about the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, the Messiah.

Make A Comment