Who Was Jesus? Part 2

The soldiers remove Jesus's robe and put a scarlet one on him, as well as a crown of thorns on his head and a reed in his hand to serve as a scepter. Then they make fun of him, calling him, "King of the Jews," while they spit on him and beat him. Finally, they put Christ's clothes back on him and take him to be crucified.

While they are proceeding to Golgotha, the soldiers compel a man called Simon of Cyrene to carry Jesus's cross. They then give Christ wine mixed with gall to drink, which he refuses. After they crucify him, they divide up his clothes and place a sign above his head reading, "This is Jesus the King of the Jews." (Mt 27:37) Two robbers are crucified on either side of him, they too joining in the abuse being heaped upon Jesus. The pa.s.sersby also taunt Christ that he claimed he could tear down the temple and rebuild it in three days, but he cannot save himself. From the sixth to ninth hours after Jesus is crucified, the land becomes dark, and Jesus utters the words, "My G.o.d, my G.o.d, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Mt 27:46) Christ is given vinegar to drink, but shortly after, he dies.

The Resurrection of the Dead.

At the point of Jesus's death, the following occurs, according to Matthew (27:51): "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 were also opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many."

These supernatural events make many believers of the people present, including some of the soldiers who were persecuting Christ. Eventually, a rich man named Joseph of Arimathea approaches Pilate and begs for Jesus's body, which he receives and lays to rest in his own tomb, rolling a rock in front of it. Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of the Zebedee brothers, James and John, remain close to Jesus and outside his tomb. The Pharisees, remembering that Christ had proclaimed he would rise again after three days, post a guard at the tomb and make sure the rock is sealed, so that Christ's followers can't steal his body and pretend that he has risen.

The Empty Tomb.

The next day, the two Marys approach the sepulcher, but an earthquake occurs, and an angel is found sitting on the rock he has rolled away from the tomb. The angel advises the women that Jesus has risen from the dead, at which point they run off in great joy. Jesus encounters them on the way and says, "Hail!" (Mt 28:9) The Marys fall to Christ's feet, and he instructs them to go tell all his disciples that he has risen and that they will see him in Galilee. The priests, having discovered that the tomb is empty, pay soldiers to spread the rumor that the disciples have stolen the body, "and this story," says Matthew, "has been spread among the Jews to this day." (Mt 28:15) The remaining disciples, minus Judas, journey to Galilee, where they find Jesus on the mountain, but are doubtful and afraid. Christ tells them that he now has "all authority in heaven and on earth" and that they should preach the gospel all over the world. He then says that he will be with them "to the close of the age."

Conclusion.

Thus ends the book of Matthew, with no mention of the ascension of Christ into heaven, as recorded in Mark and Luke. Like the ascension, there are many other events, themes or selections-called "pericopes"-present in the other gospels, including John, but lacking in Matthew. In Matthew's gospel, however, there appear over 300 verses not included in the other evangelists. Concerning the parts or pericopes "peculiar" to Matthew and not found in the other gospels, the authoritative Christian source the Catholic Encyclopedia ("CE") states: These are numerous, as Matthew has 330 verses that are distinctly his own. Sometimes long pa.s.sages occur, such as those recording the Nativity and early Childhood (i, ii), the cure of the two blind men and one dumb man (ix, 27-34), the death of Judas (xxvii, 3-10), the guard placed at the Sepulchre (xxvii, 62-66), the imposture of the chief priests (xxviii, 11-15), the apparition of Jesus in Galilee (xxviii, 16-20), a great portion of the Sermon on the Mount (v, 17-37; vi, 1-8; vii, 12-23), parables (xiii, 24-30; 35-53; xxv, 1-13), the Last Judgment (xxv, 31-46), etc., and sometimes detached sentences, as in xxiii, 3, 28, 33; xxvii, 25, etc.... Those pa.s.sages in which Matthew reminds us that facts in the life of Jesus are the fulfillment of the prophecies, are likewise noted as peculiar to him.... ("Gospel of St. Matthew") The pericopes found in Matthew and not elsewhere include the following: * Joseph's vision (Mt 1:20-24) * The visit by the wise men (Mt 2:1-12) * The flight of Joseph, Mary and the babe into Egypt (Mt 2:13-15) * Herod's ma.s.sacre of the infants (Mt 2:16) * Judas's death (Mt 27:13).

* The saints rising out of their graves at the crucifixion (Mt 27:52).

* The "baptismal commission" (Mt 28:19-20).

Despite the differences, a detailed comparison of the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke reveals that these three are not independent of each other, which is why they are grouped together as "synoptics." The term "synoptic" means "to see together," although in reality the discrepancies even among these three gospels are significant. The study of this subject is called the "Synoptic Problem" and is defined by conservative evangelical Christian scholar, professor of theological studies and dean of the Graduate school of Theology at Wheaton College Merrill C. Tenney in New Testament Survey: ...If the three Synoptic Gospels are totally independent of each other in origin and development, why do they resemble each other so closely, even to exact verbal agreement in many places? If, on the other hand, they have a literary relationship to each other, how can they be three independent witnesses to the deeds and teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ?1 This latter point is an important one, as it is a.s.serted that the historicity of the gospel story is enhanced by the existence of more than one "eyewitness account." Moreover, it should be kept in mind that two of three synoptics, Mark and Luke, were not even eyewitnesses but based their accounts on those of others.

Regarding the Gospel of Matthew, Dr. Tenney-who was one of the translators of the NASB and NIV editions of the Bible-evinces that it was based on "notes that Matthew took on Jesus' teaching," with a narrative that "closely...resembles Mark." He then states that this resemblance between the two gospels "could be explained on the basis of common tradition and living contact, as well as by appropriation of written work."2 In reality, centuries-long New Testament scholarship has demonstrated the complexity of the issues surrounding the authorship of the gospels, including their value as "eyewitness" doc.u.ments. In this regard, the phrase "appropriation of written work" is important to note, as it affirms that the authors were copying either each other or other sources, not simply relating their own memories as alleged eyewitnesses (Matthew and John) or companions to eyewitnesses (Mark and Luke). As we shall see, when it comes to who wrote the gospels and what they based their accounts on, there is more to the mystery than meets the eye.

The Gospel According to Mark.

"The Gospels are neither histories nor biographies, even within the ancient tolerances for those genres."

Dr. John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus (x.x.x) The general order of all three of the synoptic gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke, proceeds through Jesus's life from "his birth, baptism, temptation, ministry, pa.s.sion, death and then resurrection." Between the gospels of Matthew and Mark appear "many points of resemblance in the construction of sentences," as well as similarities in "their mode of expression, often unusual, and in short phrases," while in certain pericopes "the greater part of the terms are identical."1 For a variety of reasons, including the fact that nearly the entirety of Mark's gospel appears within Matthew, as well as these various germane similarities between the texts, many scholars have concluded that Mark was the first gospel and that Matthew and Luke based theirs upon his. Because Mark contains verses not found in the other synoptics, among other reasons, other scholars aver that Mark is founded upon another doc.u.ment, "Ur-Markus," which is the basis also of Matthew and Luke.

Was Mark First?

In reality, there are a number of instances in Mark which indicate that in order to follow the tale the reader would need to have been familiar with details of the gospel story that are not presented in that text. For example, neither Mark nor John mention the virgin birth-if Mark's gospel was the first, which means he may have thought it would stand alone, how could he leave out such a significant event? Another such instance appears in Mark's reportage of what happened to John the Baptist (Mk 1:14): The phrase "[a]fter John was arrested" presumes the reader already knew what had happened, indicating that Mark expected his readers to have previously read another preceding gospel. These examples are among several such reasons why Matthew's gospel has been placed first.

Indeed, it has even been suggested that Mark was written in response to criticisms of Matthew's gospel. One example used to craft the case that Mark was composed in order to answer commentary about Matthew occurs in the story of Jesus calling James and John from their boat, after which the two run off and leave their father alone. Perhaps this behavior caused Jesus to look like someone who led children away from their parents, directly contravening Jewish customs that make disobeying one's parents a capital offense, punishable by stoning. In Mark (1:20), at the end of the verse where James and John leave their father in the boat, we find the phrase "with hired servants" appended to the sentence, softening the impression of abandonment.

In discussing the possible order of the gospels, however, the Catholic Encyclopedia comments that Mark "makes no reference to the adoration, nor to the striking confession of the disciples that Jesus was [the] Son of G.o.d." CE then asks, "how can we account for this, if he had Matthew's report before him?... It would seem, therefore, that the view which makes the Second Gospel dependent upon the First is not satisfactory."1 Moreover, even though it also appears to have been built upon Matthew in order to answer questions raised by that gospel, the beginning of Mark seems to have been written to follow directly the last Old Testament book of Malachi, since, instead of the birth narrative, Mark begins his gospel with an account of John the Baptist, the "voice crying in the wilderness" and "the messenger" as prophesied "in the prophets," e.g., Malachi.

Comparison of Matthew and Mark.

Furthermore, although there are many striking similarities that demonstrate common source texts, there are also details in each gospel that differ significantly in some places, with serious chronological discrepancies and other difficulties as well. Much shorter than Matthew's, the gospel of Mark contains several important differences, including in the language, story details and chronology of events. The differences between Mark and Matthew include the omission in Matthew of 31 verses found in Mark, as at 1:23-28; 4:26-29; 7:32-36; 8:22-26; 9:39, 40; and 12:41-44. The pericopes present in Mark but not in Matthew include the risen Jesus appearing to the disciples in Jerusalem, and the ascension. Yet another difference can be seen at Matthew 5:15, with a pa.s.sage from the Sermon on the Mount, which Mark (4:21) places in a different setting. In another instance of disparity between the texts, three of Jesus's miracles appear together at Matthew 8:1-5 but are set apart in Mark (1:40-44; 3:12, 5:43, 7:36, 8:30, 9:9). Also, in the pericope of the demoniac's exorcism, in Matthew (8:28) there are two possessed men, while in Mark (5:2) there is only one. At Matthew 26:34, Peter is depicted as denying Christ three times before the c.o.c.k crows; whereas, in Mark (14:68), the apostle only manages two denials prior to the rooster crowing.

The chronological order between Matthew and Mark diverges in several places as well, such as at Matthew 8:23-9:9, depicting events that are given a different arrangement at Mark 4:36-41, 5:1-17 and 2:1-12. In Matthew, Jesus climbs into in a boat, calms the storm, heals the demoniac, goes back to Galilee and heals the paralytic. Mark parallels Matthew up to the point of the healing of the paralytic, which he puts much earlier in the narrative at 2:1-12, long before Jesus gets into the boat.

Another serious chronological discrepancy occurs in the story of Jesus raising Jairus's daughter from the dead (Mt 9:18-26; Mk 5:21-43; Lk 8:40-56). As evangelical Christian Tom Dixon relates: Mark and Luke a.s.sert that Jairus approached Jesus when he and the disciples got out of the boat near Capernaum, as crowds came rushing up to him. Matthew, on the other hand, states that it was while John the Baptist's disciples were talking with Jesus at Matthew's house.

Yet another disparity occurs with the story of Jesus overturning the tables of the moneychangers in the temple. In Matthew, Christ enters Jerusalem, cleanses the temple, spends the night in Bethany and the next day curses the fig tree, which immediately withers. (Mt 21:12) In Mark, however, Jesus enters Jerusalem, spends the night in Bethany, curses the fig tree, cleanses the temple, and then the next day the disciples notice the fig tree is withered. (Mk 11:11-21) Moreover, all the synoptists place the cleansing of the temple at the end of their gospels, while John puts it at the beginning of the story.

In addition, while Matthew records more of Jesus's sayings and speeches, Mark is more detailed about the events or narrative of the story, adding more or less vague references to time and place. Matthew, however, is more precise about other facts, and it is generally agreed that Matthew's Greek is more elegant and refined than Mark's. Furthermore, it appears that Matthew was concerned with painting Jesus and the disciples in a more favorable light, omitting Christ's displays of anger (Mk 3:5) and other overwrought emotionality (Mk 3:21), as well as the evident dimwittedness, hardheartedness and trepidation of the disciples (Mk 6:52; 8:17-21; 9:32). Matthew seems more aware of the (Jewish) readers' sensibilities concerning religious customs, excluding, for instance, the "Saying of the Lord" at Mark 2:27: "And he said to them: 'The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath.'" Regarding these differences between Matthew and Mark, the Catholic Encyclopedia states, "Omissions or alterations of this kind are very numerous."1

The Missing Scriptures.

One of the most noticeable omissions in the gospels appears in the last verses of Mark, 16:9-20, which are absent in several versions of the Bible, including the Revised Standard Version (RSV), which appends them in a footnote. This omitted pericope concerns the appearance of the risen Christ to Mary Magdalene and others. The RSV also excludes some sentences at the end of Mark 16:8, referring to Jesus sending out "the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal life." Also absent in the RSV is the ascension, which is included in the King James Version (KJV). The RSV further places Mark 11:26 in a footnote, while the KJV puts it in the text. The King James Bible was translated using preceding English translations and Greek texts dating to the 12th to 15th centuries-the "Textus Receptus"-as well as "some influence from the Latin Vulgate." The RSV utilized the most ancient Greek ma.n.u.scripts currently extant, along with preceding English translations such as the KJV and others. Certain Fundamentalist Protestant Christians believe that the KJV is "inspired" and "inerrant," regardless of the fact that the texts upon which it was based differ in many places from the earliest Greek ma.n.u.scripts, which were not available during the translation of the King James Bible. The original Textus Receptus (TR) compiled by Dutch theologian Erasmus (1516) was hurriedly put together and contained "thousands of typographical errors," as well as scribal commentary that was not in the original Greek. In 1550, the TR was eventually reissued by Stepha.n.u.s/Stephens, whose edition was the basis of the KJV, with a significant amount of the same problems intact. The fact that various versions of the Bible differ from each other is very significant and needs to be kept in mind, as does the realization of the flawed nature of the Textus Receptus.

The Catholic Bible, the Douay-Rheims, based on St. Jerome's Latin Vulgate translation of the 5th century, contains all of the controversial verses in Mark, about which the Catholic Encyclopedia remarks: ...the great textual problem of the Gospel concerns the genuineness of the last twelve verses. Three conclusions of the Gospel are known: the long conclusion, as in our [Catholic] Bibles, containing verses 9-20, the short one ending with the verse 8...and an intermediate form...1 The CE relates one argument that these verses were present in the original text but became lost at some point, proposing a "defective copy" missing the scriptures that "fell into the hands of ignorant scribes" who spread the error. This suggestion indicates that Christian scholars agree there are mistakes in the transmission of the gospel texts, which would in turn imply that the Holy Spirit was not infallibly overseeing the all-important composition and copying of the gospels, as has been a.s.serted by certain Christian fundamentalists in regard to various ma.n.u.scripts, including the Textus Receptus.

Concerning the last verses of Mark, in What Critics Ask, Christian apologist Dr. Norman Geisler provides several cogent arguments against their authenticity: (1) These verses are lacking in many of the oldest and most reliable Greek ma.n.u.scripts as well as in important Old Latin, Syriac, Armenian, and Ethiopic ma.n.u.scripts. (2) Many of the ancient church fathers reveal no knowledge of these verses, including Clement, Origen, and Eusebius. Jerome admitted that almost all Greek copies do not have it. (3) Many ma.n.u.scripts that do have this section place a mark by it indicating it is a spurious addition to the text. (4) There is another (shorter) ending to Mark that is found in some ma.n.u.scripts. (5) Others point to the fact that the style and vocabulary are not the same as the rest of the Gospel of Mark.1 Regardless of these important facts, Dr. Geisler attempts to salvage the suspect pa.s.sage by reasoning, "Whether or not this piece of text belongs in the original, the truth it contains certainly accords with it." He then states it makes no difference whether or not this text belongs in the original gospel. In this manner, Christ's ascension-a stunning, miraculous and supernatural improbability-is accepted on mere faith without a verifiably genuine account of it in Mark, as relayed by the apostle Peter, who would have been an eyewitness to this astounding event but who apparently felt no interest in having Mark record it. One would think that if the ascension really happened, Mark would have jumped at the chance to depict it! The ascension, in fact, would const.i.tute one of the major "fingerprints of the Christ," demonstrating his divinity, so its absence is rather inexplicable.

The fifth argument against the genuineness of the verses at 16:9-20 includes that they were written by a different hand, using language peculiar to them and not found elsewhere in Mark. Concerning this thesis, CE remarks that "the c.u.mulative force of the evidence against the Marcan origin of the pa.s.sage is considerable." Although it later indicates confidence in the Markan authority of these pa.s.sages, CE advises that "Catholics are not bound to hold that the verses were written by St. Mark." This fact is important to note, as it demonstrates that even in the most fervently believing sector the authorship of at least parts of the gospels is not adhered to as dogma. The CE is quick to admonish, however, that, no matter who wrote them, these verses are canonical and inspired, so they "must be received as such by every Catholic." CE, therefore, is claiming canonicity and inspiration for verses not necessarily included in the autograph or written by the original evangelist-another important clue to note, as this claim of "inerrancy" for scribal additions/copyists' notes has played a significant role in New Testament history as well.

Moreover, it seems odd that the Catholic authorities would not know who wrote these pa.s.sages, especially since the Catholic Church has been in possession of certain early Christian texts for centuries, and since the New Testament books are claimed to have emanated from, or been inspired by, the Holy Spirit. Logic would suggest that the Holy Spirit could therefore validate the authenticity of these verses and texts, especially in response to queries from Christian authorities themselves. In consideration of its prominent role within Christianity for almost 2,000 years, it is surprising that the Catholic Church has not been in possession of many more of the most ancient Christian texts, including the precious originals written by the evangelists themselves.

The Three Synoptics Juxtaposed.

A comparison of all three synoptic gospels reveals that Mark is also missing the first two chapters in Matthew and the first chapter of Luke. Regarding the material found in these three evangelists, the Catholic Encyclopedia ("Gospel of St. Mark") states: In the arrangement of the common matter the three Gospels differ very considerably up to the point where Herod Antipas is said to have heard of the fame of Jesus (Matthew 13:58; Mark 4:13; Luke 9:6)....

After this point, the synoptics are "practically the same." The most glaring exceptions appear in the order of the triumphal entry into Jerusalem, the clearing of the temple and the cursing of the fig tree. Luke and Mark differ in their placement of Christ's announcement of Judas's betrayal. (Mk 14:18-24; Lk 22:19-23) Regarding this development, CE also admits that "in many pa.s.sages, some of considerable length, there is such coincidence of words and phrases that it is impossible to believe the accounts to be wholly independent. On the other hand, side by side with this coincidence, there is strange and frequently recurring divergence."

Raising the question of priority again, CE further states: Literary dependence or connexion of some kind must be admitted, and the question is, what is the nature of that dependence or connexion? Does Mark depend upon Matthew, or upon both Matthew and Luke, or was it prior to and utilized in both, or are all three, perhaps, connected through their common dependence upon earlier doc.u.ments or through a combination of some of these causes?1 In concluding its entry on the Gospel of Mark, CE remarks: There is no reason, therefore, why Catholics should be timid about admitting, if necessary, the dependence of the inspired evangelists upon earlier doc.u.ments, and, in view of the difficulties against the other theories, it is well to bear this possibility in mind in attempting to account for the puzzling relations of Mark to the other two synoptists.

Here we see that even the synoptic gospels differ from each other substantially in several important aspects, yet also contain such similarities as to indicate one or more common source. The reliance of the evangelists upon earlier doc.u.ments, rather than the gospels serving as memorialization of the experiences of important eyewitnesses, const.i.tutes a highly salient factor that needs to be emphasized in our a.n.a.lysis. As Tenney notes, if these texts rely on common source doc.u.ments, how can we possibly claim they represent the views of three separate eyewitnesses?

The Gospel According to Luke.

"The gospels are not primarily works of history in the modern sense of the word."

Dr. John Meier, A Marginal Jew (I, 41) As a reflection of the important fact that the evangelists relied upon earlier doc.u.ments as source texts for their gospels, the gospel of Luke makes mention of a number of narratives that preceded it. These sources may have included Matthew and Mark, which possess many similarities to Luke's gospel, or, more probably, a core text used by all three. The most well-known material common to all three synoptics and missing in the gospel of John includes: * The temptation * The calming of the storm * The healing of Jairus's daughter * The plucking of the grain on the sabbath * The healing of the man with the withered hand * The naming of the disciples * The parable of the sower * The parable of the mustard seed * The transfiguration * The "second" cleansing of the temple * The foretelling of Christ's second coming * Judas's betraying overture to the priests * The appearance of Christ before the Sanhedrin * The darkness descending upon Christ's crucifixion While this list forms the nucleus of similarities between the synoptic gospels, there are also disparities, some significant and others less so. For instance, the lists of the disciples differ from one another and vary in diverse ma.n.u.scripts as well. The major difference between these lists is that "Lebbaeus Thaddaeus" (Mt 10:3) or just "Thaddaeus" (Mk 3:18) is recorded in the first two, while Luke-Acts1 names this disciple "Judas son of James." The KJV translates this phrase as "Judas brother of James." In any event, in order to reconcile these lists, we must simply accept that "Judas of James" is the same as Lebbaeus Thaddaeus. There is no biblical authority a.s.serting this connection, however. Nor is there any external evidence of even the existence of the apostles, much less their specifics. We are left to take this connection on faith, based on the circular reasoning that the lists differ and must be reconciled. Although the lists do not seem to diverge significantly, the discrepancies do raise the question of whether they are historically accurate, or one or more of the evangelists made a mistake.

There are still other discrepancies between the synoptic gospels, including in the genealogies and the birth accounts, entirely absent in Mark, and in Luke diverging in several details from Matthew. In addition, Luke does not record the flight into Egypt, while Matthew does. Furthermore, Luke, the longest of the gospels, includes some 520 verses not found in the other evangelists,1 comprising several important pericopes such as: * The birth of John the Baptist (Lk 1:57-80) * The annunciation of Jesus's birth (Lk 1:26-38) * The shepherds in the field (Lk 2:8-20) * Jesus's circ.u.mcision (Lk 2:21) * Christ being presented in the temple (Lk 2:22-38) * Jesus teaching in the temple as a youth (Lk 2:40-52) * The woman with the alabaster jar washing Jesus's feet with her tears, etc. (Lk 7:36-50) * The disciples James and John threatening to destroy a Samaritan village by bringing down fire from heaven (Lk 9:54) * The story of the Good Samaritan (Lk 10:25-37) * The healing of the 10 lepers (Lk 17:11-19) As an example of other disparities between the gospels, not only does Luke place Jesus's Sermon on a plain, rather than the mount of Matthew, but he also recounts only four beat.i.tudes (Lk 6:20-25), whereas Matthew gives eight (Mt 5:3-12), and even these are significantly different from each other "in general form and conceptions." Moreover, the Lord's Prayer in Luke (11:2-4) differs from that in Matthew, suggesting that one or the other version does not reflect Jesus's actual words. Also, Matthew often arranges Christ's speeches and sayings thematically or topically, while in Luke they appear scattered about.

Chronological Discrepancies.

When discussing the differences between the gospels, it is useful to consider the beginning paragraph of Luke: 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 followed all things closely, for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed. (Luke 1:1-4) Luke thus states that "many" had compiled narratives of Christ's life before him. The verbiage here for "an orderly account" indicates the evangelist was aware of the chronological difficulties of the other narratives, including not only canonical gospels but also apocryphal gospels and other texts.

In reality, the chronology of events differs widely in some places between Luke and the other gospels. For instance, in addition to the problem of Jairus's daughter, previously mentioned, another pericope in which the chronology between Luke and Matthew is not reconcilable occurs at Luke 2:4 and Matthew 2:21-23, concerning the story of Joseph and Mary arriving in Bethlehem so Jesus's birth would "fulfill prophecy." Matthew states that the Holy Family lived in Nazareth only after Jesus's birth, while Luke depicts Joseph and Mary as possessing a home in Nazareth before Jesus's birth, portraying them as compelled to go to Bethlehem in order to partic.i.p.ate in the census of Quirinius or Cyrenius, as he is called by Josephus.

In addition, Mark (1:16-45) and Luke (4:31-44; 5:1-16) differ in the order of the sequence of pericopes in which Christ calls his disciples; the ministry in Capernaum; the casting out of a demon in the synagogue; and, the healing of Peter's mother-in-law. Also, the story of the centurion's servant being healed by Jesus appears in Matthew (8:5-13) before the sabbath-breaking grain plucking and the healing of the man's withered hand, while in Luke (7:1-10) the servant is healed after these other two occurrences. Furthermore, in his account of Jesus's transfiguration (9:28-36), Luke claims it took place eight days after "these sayings," whereas Matthew and Mark put it six days after. In general, Luke has a similar chronology as that of Mark, although disagreeing in a number of details, but nevertheless suggesting that Luke followed Mark rather than Matthew. At the same time, Matthew and Luke possess in common some 250 verses that are not found in Mark. As in Mark, the one brief mention of Christ's ascension in Luke (24:51) is lacking in the earliest texts and is omitted in the RSV among other translations.

Luke's Tenor.

One pericope in Matthew repeated by Luke is that of Jesus addressing the "great mult.i.tudes," preceding the parable of the prodigal son. In this pericope, Luke portrays Christ as stating: "If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me, cannot be my disciple.... So therefore, whoever of you does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple." (Lk 14:26-33) This disturbing commentary appears also at Matthew 10:37-38, with different terminology omitting the word "hate." The original Greek of Luke specifically uses the verb -miseo-which means "to hate," despite the recent trend to soften the word by mistranslating it.

Another troubling pa.s.sage occurs at Luke 19:27, part of a parable that Jesus tells in regard to his disciples' concern about the coming Kingdom of G.o.d. Within this parable about a king-widely interpreted as referring to Jesus himself-appears the following scripture: "But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them before me."

This dark and violent remark ends the parable, with the impression of a serious threat to anyone who obstructs Jesus and the Kingdom of G.o.d lording over them. This entire parable is extremely odd, as it emphasizes severity, power, brutality and money-mongering. Over the centuries many commentators on this particular pa.s.sage with its menacing "lesson," such as conservative Christian Matthew Henry, have agreed that the king in this parable refers to Christ himself.

Luke, of course, is not alone in his portrayal of a berserkers Christ, as Mark too depicts Jesus in a less-than-stellar light. As New Testament scholar, theologian, former Catholic priest and Professor Emeritus of Religious Studies at DePaul University, Dr. John Dominic Crossan, says, "You have a Jesus out of control almost in Mark, a Jesus totally in control in John. Both gospel. Neither of them are historical."1

Startling Conclusions.

Regarding the disparities between the synoptic gospels, Dr. Crossan concludes: ...when Matthew or Luke are using Mark as a source for what Jesus said or did or what others said or did to Jesus, they are unnervingly free about omission and addition, about change, correction, or creation in their own individual accounts.1 As noted, New Testament scholarship has revealed common source material used by the evangelists, indicating their reliance upon these earlier texts rather than recounting their own memories as witnesses to the events described. All of this copying makes little sense, if these gospels in fact const.i.tute the eyewitness accounts of the historical Jesus. If Matthew is describing actual experiences he had, why does he need to copy Mark? Since Luke is clearly not an eyewitness but is working from the earlier narratives of others, how can his account be considered that of a "separate eyewitness?" Moreover, if all of the gospels were inspired by the Holy Spirit, as Christian doctrine professes, why would they need to copy each other? Could there not be another more rational, logical and scientific explanation, such as that the gospels are manmade accounts written by fallible human beings who were not eyewitnesses? And what about the gospel of John, which sits squarely apart from the others-why is John's gospel so different from the rest?

The Gospel According to John.

"John, the apostle whom Jesus most loved, the son of Zebedee and brother of James, the apostle whom Herod, after our Lord's pa.s.sion, beheaded, most recently of all the evangelists wrote a Gospel, at the request of the bishops of Asia, against Cerinthus and other heretics."

St. Jerome, De Viris Ill.u.s.tribus (ch. 9) "John, the disciple of the Lord, preaches this faith, and seeks, by the proclamation of the Gospel, to remove that error which by Cerinthus had been disseminated among men, and a long time previously by those termed Nicolaitans, who are an offset of that 'knowledge' falsely so called..."

Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, Against Heresies (III, 11.3) The Gospel of John is located last in the canon but in early times was also placed directly after Matthew. The tone and structure of John's gospel diverge significantly from the other three, which is why the latter are categorized together as synoptics, while John is not included in this group. The most noticeable difference between John and the other evangelists is that his gospel takes place mainly in Jerusalem and Judea, whereas the others focus on Christ's advent in the north of Palestine. John also appears to be more concerned with Jesus's sayings and speeches rather than his deeds and miracles, concentrating particularly on Christ's interactions with the Jewish authorities, and displaying a more p.r.o.nounced anti-Jewish tone and sentiment than the other gospels.

John's gospel is frequently out of sync with the synoptics, so the tendency is to view it not as a strict history or biography but mainly as a theological text. In fact, John is considered the most theological of the gospels, specifically highlighting Christ's divinity, and evidently serving as a response to those who denied Jesus was G.o.d. There is a longstanding debate as to the true authorship of the gospel of John called the "Johannine problem," which includes not only denials beginning in antiquity that the apostle John wrote the gospel but also the fact that John speaks of "the Jews" as if he is not one himself.

The differences between John and the other gospels include a number of important pericopes present in John but not in Matthew, Mark and Luke: * Jesus as G.o.d's Word or "Logos" (Jn 1:1-4) * The wedding feast and water-to-wine miracle in Cana (Jn 2:1-11) * The "first" cleansing of the temple (Jn 2:12-25) * The healing pool of Bethesda (Jn 5:2-15).

* The raising from the dead of Lazarus (Jn 11:1-44).

* Jesus's mother, Mary, appearing at the cross (Jn 19:25-27).