John's Opening Statement.

“In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God” (John 1:1).

 

The reader of the Gospels after reading Matthew, Mark, and Luke would be immediately met with something somewhat different in the Gospel of John. This account opens up with an introduction that is thoroughly theological in nature. It seems that the opening words are consciously based on the opening phrases of the book of Genesis, connecting the redemption of Christ to the concept of creation. (εν αρχή equals ברשית). John uses the word “beginning” (αρχή) in his opening verses but not in the same sense as Mark and Luke. Mark’s usage of αρχή means the beginning of the Gospel, the good news of Jesus. (Mark 1:1). Luke, by the same term, means the beginning point of the gospel tradition (1:2). John’s usage, however, appears to be the most theological of them all. “In the beginning,” in John’s usage, means the time before the creation of the world. Jesus is the Divine Word who was preexistent, “in the beginning,” who became flesh.

 

This was John's purpose, to begin his account by a clear presentation of who Jesus is. There is no escaping the fact that John was writing to point out Jesus as God. Here is God, who was always before time, in the flesh. That is an astounding thing to say, bordering on lunacy. Yet, if that opening statement is true, then humanity is doomed. For God had come down and appeared to man in the flesh, as a human, and we, for the most part, rejected Him. Yet to the doubters, John makes no apology. In the beginning was the Word. God was the Word. In some respect, this is shock-evangelism. John presents a shocking claim and the for the rest of the book, tries to persuade you to believe in Jesus Christ.

 

 

“εν αρχή ἧν ό λόγος, και ό λόγος ἧν προς τόν θεόν, και θεός ἧν ό λόγος” (Jn. 1:1)

 

Approaches To New Testament Studies (A Short Summary)

You want to understand the New Testament. But shortly after delving into your studies you cannot help but notice the fact that there are lots of perspectives and ideas concerning the New Testament. If you are not a well-informed student of the Word, you might end up with the wrong resources in your hand, going down the wrong path. You don't want that. I don't want it either. So, how do we begin assessing the various books and commentaries to gain an awareness of where to go? Approaches to New Testament studies boils down, in a general brush stroke, to two main schools of interpretation:
The Evangelical Approach and the Critical Approach.

The Evangelical approach is not necessarily anti-critical or non-critical, but the Critical approach is, very much not evangelical. And although both approaches utilized the same methodologies, to various extents and results, there are fundamental differences that separates the two. But because there is a very wide spectrum of both evangelical and critical scholars, and because of the shared methodologies, it is easier to label them as tendencies rather than sharply defined camps that opposes each other. So when you read a book or a commentary on the New Testament, look for the tendencies. So what are the tendencies?

The fundamental difference between the Evangelical position and the Critical approach is their view of the supernatural. The Evangelical believes that there is a one true God, the God of the Bible, who acted miraculously in history. The Critical, on the other hand, developing from the Rationalism of the Enlightenment denies any miraculous or supernatural elements, not just for the New Testament but for all religion as well.

A second difference, more specific to the New Testament, is in their view of the length of the New Testament's composition period. Critical scholars like to assume a long, evolutionary development of the New Testament content and theology that lasted approximately 150 years. Evangelicals, contrary to this view, say that the New Testament was written during a shorter, possibly much shorter period. For the most part, they believed most of the books of the New Testament, if not all, were written before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

A third difference is in their view on the origin of the Gospel story. The Critical school tends to see the Gospel as the creation of primitive church communities dispersed throughout the Roman Empire. To them, Jesus did not really have a Gospel. His followers (the church) made it all up to give credence to their cause. Evangelicals, on the other hand, accepts the Gospel stories of Jesus as authentic history.

A fourth difference is in their view on the unity and diversity of the New Testament books. The Critical view emphasizes the fact that there are too many inconsistencies within the New Testament for it to make a coherent continuous thought. There is discontinuity within the New Testament.To them, the stylistic differences of each book highlights multiple traditions or versions of the Gospel that are in various ways parallels, contradictories, and unrelated to each other. To them, these differences points to "Christianities" rather than a Christianity. The Evangelical view understands the New Testament as having a diversity of the witnesses to Christ. They may have different forms, styles, and vocabularies in relating the Gospel, but they all agree in theology.

A fifth difference is in their view of the historicity of the New Testament. Should we view the New Testament as authentic history?  Because the Critical view sees discontinuity within the New Testament, they therefore regard the New Testament as historically unreliable. And because the New Testament records supernatural phenomena, it is rejected on philosophical grounds. Their conclusion is that the New Testament is a bunch of myths with certain elements of truth woven into it. The Evangelical view, of course, accepts the New Testament as historically reliable.

Another difference is in their view of the nature of New Testament Christianity. The Critical view believes that Christianity was the result of its environment. The divine Son-ship, the crucifixion, second coming, atonement, etc. of Christ are derived from the many other religion of the ancient world. Evangelicals, on the other hand, believes the New Testament to be witnessing to God's revelation in Christ.

There you have it. Next time you are reading a book about the New Testament, a commentary, an article, a devotional or even an introduction to the New Testament book, look for the tendencies of the author. Ask and evaluate. Do which does this author lean towards?

The Synoptic Problem.

The different Gospel accounts generally show agreement. Yet, they also show striking divergences. For example, the birth story of Jesus in Matthew and Luke are entirely different while Mark does not record any birth (Matt. 1:18-2:23; Luke 1:5-2:52). Why is this so? Another example is that Matthew and Luke both have genealogies, but the list in each differs and Mark skips a genealogy altogether (Matt. 1:-17; Luke 3:23-28). Again we ask why? Another one is that Matthew's Sermon on the Mount account is longer than the sermon recorded in Luke 6:20-49, but some materials are found in Luke that are not found in Matthew. There seems to be too many inconsistencies. Finally if all wrote of the Passion of Christ, his death and resurrection, why do each contain many differences and no two record exactly the same series of event? These differences are some among many.

One would expect that there shouldn't be any differences on such an important story as the life of Christ. Yet, like a sore thumb these seeming anomalies stick out. How then do we solve this?

The early church was not ignorant of this problem, but there was really no serious attempt to explain it. Since the gospels were treated as authentic and above reproach, interests converged on how they harmonize instead. This led to endeavors to try to unify the gospels as one continuous narrative. This interest was expressed in Tatian's Diatessaron (160 AD).

Then in the year 400 AD, St. Augustine of Hippo wrote On the Harmony of the Evangelists (De Consensu Evangelistarum). His explanation was that the sequence in how they appear in the Bible was the sequence in which they were written. According to him, Matthew was written first, then Mark abbreviated his version from Matthew, and Luke used both to write his.  Augustine also believed that each writers did not write without a knowledge that there were others undertaking the same task. Yet each followed an independent path. This was his answer to the synoptic problem.

It was not until the Enlightenment period (1650-1800) that serious work was made. The early proposals to explain the synoptic problem gave rise to five main theories:

1. The Primitive Gospel Theory: German scholar G.E Lessing in 1771, suggested that the three gospels followed an earlier Aramaic gospel that is now lost. He based his theory on an obscure passage in the writings of St. Jerome that stated an existence of a Gospel of the Nazarenes in the 4th century AD. J.G Eichhorn developed this theory and concluded that there must have been several revision of this Aramaic gospel before Matthew, Mark, and Luke wrote theirs. Thus Matthew, Mark, and Luke differs from each other because they followed different revisions.

2. The Oral Tradition Theory: Another German scholar by the name of J.G Herder in 1797 came out with the theory that the gospel was transmitted orally and that there was never any written source prior to the writing of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. He contends that the gospel in general emerged from a frequent telling of it by the disciples and early Christians. This theory was expanded in 1818 by J.K.L Giesler who insisted that the oral transmission of the gospel was originally in Aramaic and as more and more Gentiles were added, a Greek oral tradition emerged. And that it was this transplanting from Aramaic to Greek that brought different emphases, presentations consistent with the needs and interests of the Gentile audience. Thus, Matthew produced his gospel with a Palestinian Jewish emphasis, Mark, under the influence of Peter, wrote a modified Palestinian gospel for Jews in Rome and elsewhere, and Luke, as a companion of Paul, wrote to Gentiles. C.C Torrey argued a form of it in 1933: The Four Gospels.

3. The Fragmentary Theory: in 1817, Friedrich Schleiermacher proposed that a large number of short written accounts in circulation was what the early church had. He held that these accounts were brief records of particular events that had been written by various eyewitness and that years later the writers of Matthew, Mark, and Luke collected these account and formulated their accounts. Therefore because of these fragmentary sources, we find differences in the gospels.


4. The Matthean Priority: That Matthew was the first gospel to be written was a view generally held by the early church fathers. The opinions of St. Iraneaus and St. Origen was that Matthew initially wrote in Hebrew or Aramaic and that it was later on translated into Greek. This is what St. Jerome and St. Augustine also believed. Furthermore, St. Clement of Alexandria wrote that the first gospel was the one with the genealogy. Even so, most modern scholars do not accept this view. Noteworthy proponents of this view are Johann J. Griesbach in 1789, H. Owen in 1764, and William R. Farmer in 1976 (The Synoptic Gospel).

5. The Markan Priority: In 1863 H.J Holtzmann and in 1924 B.H Streeter advocated a Mark first theory. This view is the commonly held view among most scholars today. While it began as a two-source theory, it has expanded into a four-source theory.

This view proposes that Mark wrote first and became the source for Matthew and Luke. Of the 661 verses of Mark, 601 of them are found in Matthew and Luke. Exact wording in Mark are also found in Matthew and Luke. But where they diverged from each other are in particular where Mark seems to exhibit a primitive style of writing to which Matthew and Luke improve the style or clarify the subject matter (cf. Mark 2:4; 7; 13:14). Or when Mark writes in Aramaic and both Matthew and Luke either modify the Aramaic or leave it out. And while for the most part Matthew and Luke follows Mark's outline, a second point of divergence are when Matthew and Luke followed other sources. This has led to the hypothetical Q source, where Matthew and Luke agree with each other outside of following Mark; the hypothetical M source where Matthew has materials particular only to his gospel; and the hypothetical L source, where Luke has materials strictly found in his gospel.

So while scholars argue and try to figure out this synoptic problem we cannot help but point out the obvious result of the one gospel they write about: complementary yet authoritative portrayed of the life of Jesus, rich theological emphases, and God-inspired truths for conducting life. These we can safely and confidently trust and rest on.

Matthew's Opening Statement

Matthew, unlike Mark, focused the beginning of his account on the ancestry of Jesus, which is a primary concern for Jewish- Christian readers, hinting at his possible audience.  The opening “title” βιβλος  γενεσως (book of genealogy) corresponds to  תולדת ספר in Gen. 2:4, 5:1 (The book of the genealogy of Adam, of Noah etc.). Matthew intends to demonstrate the genealogical legitimacy of Jesus of Nazareth to be the Messiah of Israel.

This interest in the genealogy suggest that Jewish concerns will be a primary interest in the Gospel. Therefore, Matthew builds on the concept of prophetic fulfillment in the stream of Jewish tradition. For example, Matthew's usage of the phrase: "ίνα πληρωθη" (that it might be fulfilled) through out his account, asserts a concentrated effort to the conclusive fact that Jesus is the long awaited Messiah.

Thus we can conclude that the purpose of Matthew's writing is to demonstrate to the reader that Jesus of Nazareth is truly the expected Messiah. He is qualified to be the King of the Jew by his family line and by the many instances in which he had fulfilled the words of the prophets.

Mark's Opening Statement.

Whereas Luke's emphasis and intention was to provide Theophilus a "certainty of the things he was taught" concerning Christianity and Jesus Christ, Mark's emphasis and intention in writing his account is quite different. Where Luke's account provides for a historical narration of the life and ministry of Jesus, Mark's Gospel, especially from its opening statement, is in a kerygmatic form. Kerygmatic means Mark's account may have been a transcription of a sermon. It is sermonic in nature.

"The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. It is written in Isaiah the prophet: "I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way. A voice in the desert crying, 'prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.'" And so John came, baptizing in the desert region and preaching" (Mark. 1:1-4).

Mark waste no time in establishing the identity of his subject. He abruptly and bluntly asserts that Jesus is the "Christ" and the "Son of God" (Keller). The word beginning (αρχη) here denotes the beginning of the Gospel story. The same word is used in the opening verses in Luke and John but with slightly different but related meaning in each. Luke uses the word to refer to the beginning of the apostle’s witness to Jesus and John is referring to the beginning of creation (Wyatt). So Mark began his account with the intention that he wants to convey the beginning of the Gospel message.

 The phrase “of the gospel” (ευαγγελιου) occurs more times in the Gospel of Mark than in any of the other Gospel accounts. This, points to the conclusion that Mark’s account is sermonic. His purpose and intention is to present the Gospel message. And here in his opening statement, by his choice of words, he is making that intention clear.

 Therefore, Mark waste no time in presenting the identity of Jesus. He wants to get the message out in the clearest way possible, and what better way than to be blunt and straight to the point? Perhaps not in the most creative of introductions and certainly not poetic, but we get the message. This is the Good News of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

 Jesus the Chosen One, the Son of God has come to earth. That is indeed Good News of the highest caliber. In fact, no other news can be its equivalence: God the Son, in human flesh. In other words, this is Immanuel (Matthew’s description). This is Mark’s intention and purpose for writing. He wants to present an account of the Good News of Christ. This is not so much an emphasis on a historical chronology as it is in delivering what the Gospel is.

Now ancient tradition, from the Church Father Papias, through Eusebius, tells us that “Mark, an interpreter of Peter, wrote down carefully all that he had recollected, though he did not record in order the that which was said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but as I said, attached himself to Peter, who used to frame his teaching to meet the demands of his listeners and not making a connected narrative of the Lord’s discourse...” Hence, the reason why Mark’s account appeared sermonic or kerygmatic.

Books I am Currently Reading...

This is a list of the books I am breaking my brain with in case anybody is interested:

1. Hagar, Sarah, and their Children by Phyllis Trible and Letty M. Russel.
2. Story of Christianity: The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation by Justo. Gonzalez.
3. From Paradise to the Promise Land by T. Desmond Alexander.
4. The Untold Story of the New Testament Church by Frank Viola.

A word of caution on the first book. It is written unashamedly from a liberal feminist perspective. So read it with a  grain of salt. Trible and Russel are very much liberal feminist theologians.

Luke's Opening Statement

Doubt has been cast over the reliability of Luke’s Gospel account.  At one time, it was argued that no census ever took place during the time of Quirinius, as governor of Syria, but recent archaeology has disproven that. It was also generally accepted, among critical scholars, that Pontius Pilate never existed. This has also been disproven. The new argument now is, just because Luke has all his events and places correct, it does not mean that he was writing a historical account. They likened it to a Tom Clancy novel. The author, Tom Clancy, writes novels based on real places, dates, and sometimes events, but this does not make his novels historical truth. Perhaps Luke’s own words might provide for us an understanding of the task he was undertaking and especially his purpose for writing.

“Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us,   just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught” (Luke 1:1-4).

A lot of things could be understood from this opening statement. But for us to begin acknowledging the reliability of Luke’s account, our attention draws us to the phrase “many have undertaken to draw up account of the things that have been fulfilled among us…” It is interesting and vital to know that other accounts, besides the four gospel accounts, were written and circulated at the time. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were not the only people who put to writing the works and ministry of Jesus. The author Luke testifies to this. This means that the life and ministry of Jesus was a generally accepted fact, and the early Christians were doing their job in spreading his good news.

The verb phrase “have undertaken” comes from the Greek word έπίχειρησαν (epikeiresan) and most of the time its usage suggests literary compositions (Plummer). So, more than likely, there were written accounts already in existence and circulation at the time of Luke’s writing. What Luke is saying is that 1) he is not the only one writing an account of Jesus but that, 2) there were others as well.

Secondly, these other accounts have undertaken “to draw up” this story of Jesus.  That phrase is another very vital language in assuming the reliability of Luke’s testimony. It comes from the word αναταξασται (anataxasthai) which means to compile or to arrange in a row, so as to show the sequence of events (Arndt). In other words, these other accounts were recording, in chronological order, the events of the life of Jesus.

Third, these accounts were from “eyewitnesses who were there from the beginning.” These eyewitnesses are Luke’s guarantee for a true report. It reflects the conviction of the Christian faith that it is not rooted in speculation but in historical reality (Ellis). And it is comforting to know that these eyewitnesses were there from the very beginning, that is, they were there from the very birth of Jesus, as a little baby.  Otherwise, Luke wouldn’t start his account at Jesus’ birth.

And fourth to the fact that these accounts were “delivered” to Luke (παρέδοσαν, paredosan). This corresponds to the Jewish idea of a student receiving, as a successor, the teaching of his rabbi, or that of a scribe transferring his work to the one continuing it (Wyatt). There is an element of reverence, trust, honor, and reliability implied.

The point to all of these was for Theophilus, the recipient of Luke’s writing, to have “certainty of the things he was taught.” It is interesting what the Greek word for certainty is: ασφαλεια (asphaleia), the very word where the English word asphalt comes from (Rienecker). That couldn’t have paint a clearer picture of what Luke is trying to convey. He is writing something true, concrete, and very much reliable.

This is beside the fact that Luke himself “carefully investigated” all of these accounts and eyewitnesses himself: παρηκολουθεκοτι (parekolouthekoti), to follow along, to trace, or investigate (Meyer). This implies that Luke was not just writing everything he heard or read, but he was making sure to follow up the truth of those accounts before relaying it to Theophilus. The adjective ακριβως (akribos) points to the painstaking character of researches (Arndt).

This opening statement of Luke’s Gospel account makes clear his purpose for writing and of his method. His purpose was to give an account to Theophilus the origin and development of the Christian faith, and to strengthen what Theophilus had already know. His method was a thorough and careful investigation of earlier accounts and eyewitnesses. Such an emphasis have led many scholars to conclude that the Lukan writings (including Acts) does have a historical form to it. And because Conzelmann and Lindemann, in reference to Acts, calls it a “historical monography” it is safe to assume the first volume to Acts, which is Luke, deserves such a title too (Wyatt).