Early Christians Interpreted Gospels Allegorically

Commentary on early Christians, allegory and differences in the Gospels.

Harold W. Attridge:
The Lillian Claus Professor of New Testament Yale Divinity School

EARLY CHRISTIANS INTERPRETED GOSPELS ALLEGORICALLY

At the time when the gospels were written, how did people read those documents? Did they read them the way we read a newspaper or a piece of history, at least with the hope, that is the factual rendition or are they reading it at a different level?

Most of the people in the early Christian movement couldn't read so they wouldn't have been reading the gospels.... Probably the greatest contact they would have had is hearing these read or preached in connection with church services. Certainly what we think of today as literal interpretation of the scripture would not really have been available in quite the same way to people in the ancient world.

I think it's important to understand that what contemporary Americans, for example, think of as a literal reading of scripture is really a product of the late 19th and early 20th century, as development or part of fundamentalism's reaction to Biblical scholarship and Biblical criticism as it had developed in the 19th century.

Early Christians certainly read scripture allegorically, understanding it to refer to some kind of so-called higher realities that weren't really present in the text itself. They could interpret it morally, as giving advice for life.

Very often in the 2nd and 3rd century, you find a kind of scriptural interpretation which we call "typological", and what that means is that events and details that are found in the Hebrew Bible are seen as types pointing ahead to the coming of Jesus.

So that, for example, the scapegoat of the Book of Leviticus who bears off the sins of the Israelites is a type pointing ahead to Jesus and his bearing the sins of the world, according to Christian teaching....

Since the Christians wanted to retain the Hebrew Bible as their scripture... it was necessary for them to make certain interpretive gestures to try to rein in the meaning of the Hebrew Bible text.

Since clearly most early Christians, at least by the 2nd century, were not keeping details of the Jewish law they had a lot of correction to do, you might say, in terms of trying to say why this scripture was theirs and [why] they had the right to interpret it, but, on the other hand, why they weren't following the Jewish law, in the way that the Hebrew Bible detailed. That was quite an interpretive problem for the early Christians....

Most of the early Christians certainly would think that the gospel stories happened. They did have problems because there are so many discrepancies among and between the gospel stories which they themselves could notice, but they had a hard time perhaps putting them all together in what we would consider a literal kind of way.

Basically, early Christians wanted to use these stories for moral edification. For a general message about salvation. Jesus lived. He died. He saved us from our sins. There's going to be an end to the world on judgment. A few basic phrases like that...

John Dominic Crossan:
Professor Emeritus of Religious Studies DePaul University

EVOLUTION OF THE FOUR GOSPELS

Did oral tradition play a part in preserving the traditions of the early movement?

Oral tradition is something that we have rather abused, I think, in scholarship. If you take, for example, the common material behind the Q gospeland the Gospel of Thomas, there's 37 sayings without any order so this is not a document of any type. Who is preserving it?

The people who are living like Jesus, the itinerants who are trying to follow the life of Jesus. They are interested in these stories, not just because of oral tradition, but because it justifies their lifestyle. So whenever somebody says oral tradition, I want to say, "Could you show it to me? I know you can't show me oral tradition, but can you show it to me some way in the text, or at least, in the lifestyle of somebody who would have cared about it?" Otherwise we have a free-floating oral tradition that is becoming kind of meaningless.

Well, how do you think the Jesus traditions were preserved then?

I think the Jesus traditions were preserved by those who were trying to live them. Whence, for example, those who preserved, "Blessed are the destitute." They preserved it because they were destitute and they thought they were blessed. They had a vested interest in remembering that saying because it described them.

How do the four gospels evolve then?

The first gospel, Mark, is around the year 70. So within 70 and, say, 95, we have the four gospels. 25 years. But that leaves 70 to 30. 40 years before that. If you watch the creativity within that 25 year span, from Mark being copied into Matthew and Luke, possibly also by John, then you have to face the creativity of that 40 years, even when you don't have written gospels. And that may be equally intense.

And so you're making it sound as if the gospels are extremely unreliable as evidence.

The gospels are, first of all, extremely reliable historical documents for their own time and place. Mark tells us very much about, say, a community writing in the 70's. John, a community writing in the mid-90's. But, since we have four of them, we get four vectors, then, on the basic tradition that they're working with.

What is common, we might be able to then work, by going back very carefully through those deliberate... what scholars call "redactional" elements in there. If Mark just made it up any old way, and Matthew did the same, we could not do anything historically with them.

DIFFERENCES AMONG THE GOSPELS

What do the gospels have in common? Is it possible to say what they do share?

What the gospels do share, of course, is Jesus. But that is almost trivial to say that. Because they are interested in not simply repeating Jesus. They are interested in interpreting Jesus. Matthew, even when he has Mark in front of him, will change what Jesus says. And that's what's most important for me, to understand the mind of an evangelist. It is that Matthew is saying, "I will change Mark so that Mark's Jesus speaks to my people."

Now, there's a logic to his change. He's not just changing it to be difficult. He will change Mark, but what Jesus says in Mark does not make sense to Matthew's people.... What is consistent about the gospels is that they change consistent with their own theology, with their own communities' needs. They do not change at random. If you begin to understand how Matthew changes Mark, you see it worked again and again and again. You don't have to make up a different reason for every change. Once you understand Matthew's theology, you can almost predict how he will change.

How significant and discrediting to belief are the differences between the four gospels?

For somebody who thinks the four gospels are like four witnesses in a court trying to tell exactly how the accident happened, as it were, this is extremely troubling. It is not at all troubling to me because they told me, quite honestly, that they were gospels. And a gospel is good news ... "good" and "news" ... updated interpretation. So when I went into Matthew, I did not expect journalism. I expected gospel. That's what I found. I have no problem with that.

So, in other words, they're doing what they set out to do, but it's not what we think they're setting out to do.

We have the problem, not Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. They do a superb job, or Christianity would not be still around, of doing what they had to do. We want them to be journalists and we're very unhappy with them.

Can you characterize the way Mark portrays Jesus and what kind of audience he's trying to play to?

Let me compare Mark with John to explain how two gospels do it differently in an episode we call "the agony in the garden". Now, there is no agony in John and there is no garden in Mark, but we call it the agony in the garden because we put them together.

Mark tells the story in which Jesus, the night before he dies, is prostrate on the ground, begging God, "If this all could pass, but I will do what you want." And the disciples all flee. Now that's an awful picture. That makes sense to me because Mark is writing to a persecuted community who know what it's like to die. That's how you die, feeling abandoned by God.

Over to John. Jesus is not on the ground in John. The whole cohort of the Jerusalem forces come out - 600 troops come out to capture Jesus, and they end up with their faces on the ground in John. And Jesus says, "Of course I will do what the Father wants." And Jesus tells them to "Let my disciples go." He's in command of the whole operation.

You have a Jesus out of control almost in Mark, a Jesus totally in control in John. Both gospel. Neither of them are historical. I don't think either of them know exactly what happened. Mark is writing to a persecuted church, "Here is how to die ... like Jesus." John is writing, I think, to a community that's hanging on by its fingernails. It's getting more and more marginalized. Its Jesus is getting more and more in control, in control of the passion, in control of Pilate. The more John's community is out of control, the more Jesus is in control. Both of that makes absolute sense to me. But both are gospel.


Read more: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/gospels.html#ixzz1hkPGVVTE

 

The 'prince of this world' has been blinding man to the truth since his fall. Margot is his handmaiden.

 

Do be absurd...

The gospel stories are all different, written in different languages and addressed to different groups... over vastly different time periods.

They also change the story rather dramatically.

Doesn't diminish their importance or the "truth " of them.

If you don't choose to study.. that's fine with me. but you don't get to denigrate all other Christians.

 

Do us all a favor and don't try to 'defend' christianity anymore. Thankseverso.

 

The Jews know the truth as do most Christians... the Torah and Bible are NOT science or literal history.


http://www.politicalforum.com/religion/223965-new-torah-modern-minds-nyt.html

 

More anti-christian rhetoric from one that claims to be Christian. You have no credibility

 

Margot is not trying to defend Christianity. He/she is a muslim parading as a Christian and then purporting false Christian beliefs in order to take away from the Bible.

This is the way of Margot and islam.

Quantrill

 

The integrity of the NT scriptures if followed the OT Jewish scribe philosophy of recording "every jot & tittle' to maintain the integrity of the scriptures, one would think would be the same for recording the NT scriptures. However, many early believers had their hands on them, some (other than the written Epistles--letters) were most likely taken as dictation from word-of-mouth from those who knew Jesus and walked with Him.

I do know one thing about scripture in general, that if one bases their life on them (en total), one will have success! The Spirit behind the message does not change.

and as Paul in one of his last epistles to his protege states concerning 'All scripture:'

2 Timothy 3:16-17
16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

 

Most Christians are not fundementalists nor do they take the Bible literlly as history and science..

But, you are certainly free t believe as you will.

 

I always thought that the NT itself, separate from the OT Jewish books, was a group of scriptures & testimonies that were floating around the church, 'unsanctioned,' until they were looked at by scholars and then 'canonized. At that point, were 'blessed' as to their validity as agreed upon by 'men ordained by God to do so', and considered 'the Word of God' and thus taken literally, word-for-word. Their integrity had then been established by the 'church elders & scholars' of the day.

 

Watering down the gospel has made this country a country of no morals. You like that so you can justify your lack of morals

 

Apparently, during the first and second century everyone was writing about Jesus.. his life, his teachings, was he God or man etc.

Here's a long list of the books, and gospels that survived in part or in whole.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

 

The Christians were writing about Jesus Christ being God and man.

Quantrill

 

Some were.. some were not..

 

Yes, muslim, they were. It must be believed in order to be Christian.

Quantrill

 

In the first and second centuries the Canon hadn't emerged so there was HUGE DIVERSITY in Christian beliefs.

 

There was no diversity on who Jesus Christ was. As was written down in the Gospels, and other letters of the New Testament. Any beliefs contrary to that were not Christian. See? Jesus Christ is fully Man and fully God.

Quantrill

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/religion/223744-emergence-canon.html

The most prominent of these are the four gospels known as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. These texts are so familiar, that it is easy to assume that four -- and only four -- gospels ever existed.

This is not the case, and the story of how the four gospels became chosen as part of the canon, or accepted literature of the church, offers a fascinating glimpse into the world of the early Christians.

Early Christian communities produced many gospels. One was the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, in which Mary is regarded as a disciple, a leader of a Christian group. Another early Christian text known as the Gospel of Truth, reflects on the teachings of Jesus, but does not talk about his death and resurrection; and the Gospel of Thomas contains only sayings attributed to Jesus.

As the number of Christian communities grew, so did the number and types of gospels. During the 2nd century, writing gospels became practically a "cottage industry," for the audience and the appetite for the literature seemed unlimited.

continued.......

 

Sorry, there are only four Gospels inspired by God. As a muslim you are welcome to have all the rest. But for the Christian, there are only four.

Four--Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. All others are false.

Quantrill

 

God or Constantine?

 

There are only four Gospels inspired by God. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Note none are found in the koran.

Quantrill

 

While sme considered them allegory, others did not. There were a good number of different beliefs in the Christian faith. That is why the Council of Trent was formed, to look at all of the different belief structures and put together a unified Christian bible and faith.

There was even a Bishop at the Council of Trent who preached that God was evil and that Jesus (the true force of good) had killed and overthrown him to rule Heaven. He even wrote his own bible.

 

Yes... Lots of diversity in the first 300 years.

]http://www.politicalforum.com/religion/223744-emergence-canon.html

The most prominent of these are the four gospels known as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. These texts are so familiar, that it is easy to assume that four -- and only four -- gospels ever existed.

This is not the case, and the story of how the four gospels became chosen as part of the canon, or accepted literature of the church, offers a fascinating glimpse into the world of the early Christians.

Early Christian communities produced many gospels.

One was the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, in which Mary is regarded as a disciple, a leader of a Christian group. Another early Christian text known as the Gospel of Truth, reflects on the teachings of Jesus, but does not talk about his death and resurrection; and the Gospel of Thomas contains only sayings attributed to Jesus.

As the number of Christian communities grew, so did the number and types of gospels. During the 2nd century, writing gospels became practically a "cottage industry," for the audience and the appetite for the literature seemed unlimited.

continued.......[/QUOTE]

 

[/QUOTE]

The earliest accepted gospel, Mark, were written around 60 years after Jesus's death. Since all of the Aspostles were over 30, which was the age at which a man came of age at that time, it would mean that Mark was around 90, when he wrote it. That is well over the average lifespan of humans at that time. This is why many scholars accept the fact that the Gospels were written either by followers of the Aspostles, using notes left behind by them, or by someone using their names to add credibility to their work.

 

The earliest accepted gospel, Mark, were written around 60 years after Jesus's death. Since all of the Aspostles were over 30, which was the age at which a man came of age at that time, it would mean that Mark was around 90, when he wrote it.

That is well over the average lifespan of humans at that time. This is why many scholars accept the fact that the Gospels were written either by followers of the Aspostles, using notes left behind by them, or by someone using their names to add credibility to their work.[/QUOTE]



Why would you assume the Apostles were 30? Why not assume that since they were unmarried men that they were in their late teens or very early 20s?

I tend to agree with the position that the Gospels were written after Paul's letters and his death in Rome circa 67 AD... which still means they would have been very old indeed...

Let's say they had been speaking.. telling the story in an oral tradition for 4 or 5 decades... scribes or followers could have certainly told the stories from the point of view of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John..