The Gospels Are Not Literal Biographies of Jesus

[kayky]

In his book, Liberating the Gospels, Episcopalian Bishop John Shelby Spong, inspired by the work of English theologian Michael Goulder, proposes the synoptic Gospels were written to provide a Christian liturgy that follows the Jewish calendar. Let's consider the Gospel of Luke as an example:

According to this theory, Luke ordered the events in his Gospel based on the Torah readings in the synagogue which are assigned to specific Sabbaths on the Jewish calendar. By doing so, Luke is telling us that Jesus is the new Torah or the new Law.

The Torah readings begin with Genisis, of course. The word genesis means "origins.". So Luke begins his Gospel by explaining the origins of both Jesus and John the Baptist.

We are introduced to Zechariah and Elizabeth, the parents of John the Baptist. They are quite overtly patterned after Abraham and Sarah in the book of Genesis:

1. Both sets of parents are called righteous (Gen. 26:5, Luke 1:6)

2. Both Sarah and Elizabeth are barren (Gen. 11:30, Luke 1:7)

3. Both were advanced in age (Gen. 18:11, Luke 1:7)

4. Both fathers receive an angelic annunciation and are disbelieving (Gen. 18:11, Luke 1:11)

5. Both fathers are told that nothing is impossible with God (Gen. 18:14, Luke 1:37)

************

Genesis then moves on to stories of Jewish origins. Isaac, the son of Abraham and Sarah, and his wife Rebekah are expecting twins. Rebekah feels the twins "leap" in her womb. So she prays about it and is told the elder Essau will serve the younger Jacob.

In Luke the newly pregnant Mary visits the very pregnant Elizabeth. This time we have cousins rather than twins. The older fetus John " leaps" in his mother's womb. It is their destiny that the older will serve the younger.

In Genesis Jacob's favorite wife Rachel is barren. When Rachel finally becomes pregnant, she declares in Genesis 30:23: "God has taken away my reproach." In Luke 1:25, Elizabeth declares: "This is what the Lord has done for me when he looked favorably on me and took away the disgrace I have endured among my people."

When Isaac's other wife Leah was blessed with children. she proclaims that God has seen her lowliness and she would be called "blessed" (Gen. 29:30,
30:13). These words are placed in the mouth of Mary in Luke 1:48: "for he has looked with favor on the lowliness of his servant. Surely from now on all generations will call me blessed."

Luke then moves on to the birth of Jesus. In Genesis 35:16-21, Jacob is on the road with the pregnant Rachel, who stops in Bethlehem to give birth to Benjamin. In Luke 2, Joseph is also on the road with the pregnant Mary, who then gives birth to Jesus in Bethlehem.

When Jacob left his father-in-law Laban, he is guarded by a host of angels (Gen. 32:1). He sends a peace offering of sheep and cattle to his brother Essau (Gen. 32:22). The birth of Jesus is also attended by angels and shepherds.

Luke 2 continues with the circumcision of Jesus. In Genesis 32 Jacob wrestles an angel at a place called Penial and declares: "I have seen God and lived" (v. 22). At the circumcision of Jesus, a priest named Simeon who had been told by God that he would see the Messiah before he died, sees the infant Jesus and declares: "...for my eyes have seen your salvation..." (v. 30). A prophetess named Anna also sees the infant and praises God. She is said to be the daughter of Phanuel, an alternate spelling of Penial.

Luke 2 ends with the story of Jesus being left behind in Jerusalem, echoing the separation of Joseph from his family when he is sold into slavery in Egypt. Earlier when Joseph tells his father about his prophetic dreams, Jacob is said to have kept all these things and pondered them just as Mary does after being reunited with the young Jesus who declares his purpose to her (Gen. 37:11, Luke 2:51).

At this point on the Jewish calandar, we reach the Jewish Festival of Pentacost. This is a problem for Luke because it interrupts the flow of his retelling of Genesis in the life of Jesus. Luke would later in Acts associate Pentacost with the baptism of the Holy Spirit. So Luke inserts here the introduction of the adult John the Baptist who announces that one will follow him who will baptize them with the Holy Spirit and with fire.

Next Luke moves on to the baptism of Jesus when the Holy Spirit descends on him and declares him to be the Son of God. The synagogue reading on this particular Sabbath would have been the Pharoah declaring Joseph to be second in command over the entire realm. Pharoah declares: "Can we find such a man as this in whom is the Spirit of God?" ( Gen. 41:38). For Luke this was the first Christian Pentacost. The second would occur after the death of Jesus when the Holy Spirit would be given to all people.

After the story of Joseph, Genesis provides a genealogy of Jacob's descendants. Luke follows suit with the genealogy of Jesus' ancestors.

Genesis ends with the dying Jacob blessing his children. The famine is in full swing in Egypt, and the hungry of the world come clamoring to Joseph for
bread. In Luke we have Jesus fasting in the wilderness where he is tempted to turn stones into bread. He resists this temptation by saying that man cannot live by bread alone. In Genesis Joseph is said to be clothed in human glory because of his willingness to serve the pharaoh. Jesus is tempted to do the same by bowing to Satan but resists saying that only God is to be served.

**********

The Torah moves on to Exodus. In Luke we find a Jesus who will be rejected by his own people just as Moses was. In Luke 4 Jesus returns to his hometown of Nazereth and gets run out of town. In Exodus Moses flees to the wilderness of Midian just after being told by the Israelites: "Who made you ruler and judge over us?"

It is also interesting to note that Jesus' sojourn in the wilderness lasted 40 days just as Moses and the Israelites wandered in the wilderness for 40 years. In Luke 4 we find that Jesus has power over nature just as Moses did. As it was with Moses, his gifts were often unappreciated.

**********

The Torah moves on to Leviticus, which was read in the synagogue over the course of 8 Sabbaths. This would have posed a difficulty for Luke since this book of prohibitions would have had little meaning for his community. So Jesus chooses twelve disciples (just as Moses led 12 tribes) and he begins his teaching ministry that would supplant the teachings of Moses.

On the Jewish calendar, we then come upon three celebrations proscribed by Leviticus: Rosh Hashanah (New Year), Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement), and the feast of Tabernacles (harvest festival).

In Luke Jesus is approached by the disciples of the imprisoned John the Baptist to inquire if he actually is the Messiah. Jesus replies by quoting Isaiah 35, which is the traditional lesson appointed for Rosh Hashanah.

Yom Kippur is a somber time of repentance and confession for Jews. A lamb was sacrificed, and the community's sins were placed on the back of a scapegoat, which was driven into the wilderness.

In Luke an unnamed woman anoints the feet of Jesus. When the disciples protest, Jesus tells them that she is preparing him for his burial, foreshadowing his role as both sacrificial lamb and scapegoat.

Tabernacles is a harvest celebration. In Luke we have the parable of the sower. Light was a minor theme of Tabernacles. In Luke Jesus teaches the meaning of light.

**********

The Torah now moves on to Numbers. Starting in chapter 5, Numbers discusses various things that are considered unclean. In Luke Jesus arrives in Gerasenes, home to unclean Gentiles. There we find a demon-possessed man living among the tombs (the dead are unclean). Jesus sends the demons into unclean swine, whom he sends to their deaths by drowning. So Jesus is seen to have overcome the ritually unclean.

Then in Luke we have the story of the woman with a menstral abnormality, which would have been considered unclean. She is healed by simply touching the hem of Jesus' garment.

This is followed by the raising of Jairus' daughter (contact with the unclean dead).

Then in Numbers 13-15, we have Moses sending 12 spies into Canaan.

In Luke Jesus sends out his 12 disciples to preach and heal.

The next festival on the Jewish calendar was Hanukkah (Dedication). It is not mentioned in the Torah. It comes from the Maccabees when the light of God was believed to have been restored to the Temple.

In Luke we have the story of the Transfiguration. But Luke relates it to Numbers in which the glory of the Lord is said to have appeared upon the meeting place.

Then in Luke, Jesus is said to have "set his face" to go to Jerusalem. In Numbers 24:1, Balaam is said to have "set his face."

Numbers ends with Moses near the banks of the Jordan, ready to leave the wilderness. In Luke Jesus is headed to Jerusalem, leaving Galilee forever.

**********

The Torah then moves on to Deuteronomy. In the first chapter the 12 spies return with fruit and declare the land to be good.

In Luke, Jesus sends out the 70, who return with joy and Jesus declares: "the harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few" (Luke 10:2).

In Deuteronomy Moses sends messengers into an alien nation to buy food and water, but they are rejected and this nation is thusly destroyed. In Luke, Jesus tells the 70 to eat and drink whatever they are given. If rejected, that town would be destroyed by God.

In Deuteronomy Moses prays to the Lord but is still denied entry into the Promised Land. Only those born in the wilderness could go in. In Luke, Jesus thanks God for concealing things from the wise and revealing them to babes who would inherit the kingdom.

In Deuteronomy 5 and 6, the Ten Commandments are discussed. In Luke, Jesus has his discussion with the lawyer about the Law.

In Deuteronomy Moses tells the people they must destroy foreigners with no mercy. In Luke, Jesus reverses this by having the foreigner (Good Samaritan) saving the injured Jew.

In Deuteronomy 8:1-3, Moses says that man cannot live by bread alone but by the words that proceed from God's mouth. In Luke, Martha is rebuked for complaining that Mary is not helping with the food preparation. Jesus says that Mary has chosen "the good portion" by listening to his teachings (Luke 10:38-42).

In Deuteronomy God is said to deal with Israel as a father does a son. In Luke we have the Lord's Prayer (Our Father).

In Deuteronomy there is a discussion of the clean and the unclean. In Luke, Jesus has dinner with a Pharisee who does not know the difference between inner cleanness and outer cleanness.

In Deuteronomy every seventh year the debts of the Jewish people were to be forgiven and slaves set free. In Luke Jesus releases a woman from bondage and is rebuked for doing it on the Sabbath (seventh day).

In Deuteronomy 20:1-7, we are told that the scribes could excuse someone from battle for having a house that had not yet been dedicated, planted a vineyard, or had recently become betrothed. In Luke we have the parable of the great feast in which the invited guests excuse themselves with excuses: had just bought a field, or purchased new oxen, or recently married. The host then opens his table to the poor and handicapped (Luke 15:11-32).

In Deuteronomy crimes that call for the death penalty are listed: rebellious sons and drunkards. In Luke we have the story of the Prodical Son, who wasted his inheritance on riotous living yet was welcomed home by his loving father.

In Deuteronomy injunctions are given against oppression of the poor. In Luke we have the parable of Lazarus and the rich man. The rich man ends up with eternal punishment for ignoring Lazarus' plight.

In Deuteronomy Moses said that when one enters the Lord's sanctuary, he was to declare that he had paid his tithes, cared for widows and orphans, obeyed the commandments, and avoided the unclean and, therefore, deserved to be blessed by God (Deut. 26:1-15). In Luke we have the story of the Pharisee and the Publican in which just such a prayer is criticized.

At this point in Luke, now that Deuteronomy has ended, Jesus reaches Jerusalem just as the liturgical year for the Jews begins anew with the month of Nisan. To partake of the Passover and fulfill his destiny. Deuteronomy, of course, is followed by Joshua (Yeshua=Jesus). It is he who will replace Moses and lead his people into the Promised Land.

**********

Does this not prove that the Gospel writers knew they were not writing literal biographies of Jesus?

[Goose]

Does this not prove that the Gospel writers knew they were not writing literal biographies of Jesus?

Since Luke is your suggested model let's look at his opening statement (1:1-4).

• "Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught."

Whatever may be said about the historically realiability of Luke, one thing seems certain. He clearly believed what he was writting had occured.

Even critics agree the Gospels are a type of ancient biography.

“Many recent scholars have come to recognize that the New Testament Gospels are a kind of ancient biography.� - Bart Ehrman, The New Testament: An Historical Introduction To The Early Christian Writings, 1997, p. 54

[bluethread]

That is a very interesting view and may very well have been the case. It is important to point out that you and goose can both be correct. It can be rightly argue that there is no such thing as "literal" history. All history is a microcosm of actual events. In modern times, "literal" history tends to imply, scientifically and/or legally verifiable chronological records, without embellishment. However, such are exceedingly rare and generally not memorable.

Without exception all history only records certain things and selects and organizes them in a way that best meets the purpose of the historian. Given the modern preference for the concept of progress, most histories are presented in a roughly chronological fashion for the purpose of spotlighting such progress. However, prior to the modern era, i.e. the 15th or 16th centuries, that was not the primary purpose of history. Though it is noteworthy that linear time is a central teaching of HaTorah, it is not the overriding consideration. Quite often things are not stated in a strictly chronological fashion. Genesis one is such a case. It does present an order, but that order seems to follow a more poetic pattern than a merely chronological one. That is why the scientific types like to point to it as a "proof" of it not being history. It isn't, using their strict view of history, but as I stated that is just one of many ways of presenting history.

[kayky]

Since Luke is your suggested model let's look at his opening statement (1:1-4).

• "Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught."

Whatever may be said about the historically realiability of Luke, one thing seems certain. He clearly believed what he was writting had occured.

Most modern scholars do not believe that the historical Luke (if there ever was such a person) even wrote the Gospel that bears his name. It was written in the very late 80's, long after such a person would have died. "Theophilus" means "lover of God," obviously not a real person. The opening at best is a literary device. No doubt there is some accurate history, but I think the OP proves that the author deliberately organized his stories and contrived their details to suit his liturgical purposes. How else do you account for the parallels I have pointed out?

Even critics agree the Gospels are a type of ancient biography.

“Many recent scholars have come to recognize that the New Testament Gospels are a kind of ancient biography.� - Bart Ehrman, The New Testament: An Historical Introduction To The Early Christian Writings, 1997, p. 54

I have read much of Bart Ehrman's work, and he would be appalled by the conclusion you are drawing from his statement (he's an atheist by the way). "A type of ancient biography" is a far cry from the modern concept of a literal biography.

[kayky]

[Replying to post 3 by bluethread]

You make a good point, but I use the phrase "literal history" in the practical sense regarding how fundamentalists tend to read the Gospels. So I don't see how Goose and I can both be correct. To come up with such parallels would have taken a great deal of contrivance on the part of the author of Luke.

[Danmark]

Most modern scholars do not believe that the historical Luke (if there ever was such a person) even wrote the Gospel that bears his name. It was written in the very late 80's, long after such a person would have died. "Theophilus" means "lover of God," obviously not a real person.

Agreed, and doesn't this prove that those who use the Gospels as evidence of the miraculous 'Jesus Story' about God becoming human in the body of Jesus are just plain flat out wrong? Isn't Paul correct when he writes:

And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.

_ 1 Corinthians 15:14

[Goose]

Most modern scholars do not believe that the historical Luke (if there ever was such a person) even wrote the Gospel that bears his name.

Irrelevant to my point. My point isn’t about who wrote the Gospel of Luke, but that whoever wrote it clearly believed what he was writing had occurred. That seems self evident from the opening statement of Luke’s Gospel.

It was written in the very late 80's, long after such a person would have died.

You mean some scholars hold to a date in the 80’s. Maybe even a majority hold that. Some scholars argue for a much earlier date.

�Our conclusion is that Luke was written just before the end of Paul’s first Roman imprisonment, c. 61-62 CE.� - Daniel B. Wallace

"Theophilus" means "lover of God," obviously not a real person.

Obviously not a real person because of the meaning of a name? Surely you are joking here. What about all the other people named Theophilus throughout history? Were they obviously not real as well?

The opening at best is a literary device.

You’ll have to explain how Luke’s opening statement is a literary device consistent with the thesis that he deliberately organized his stories and contrived their details to suit his liturgical purposes. It seems to me Luke’s opening statement is prima facie evidence against your position.

No doubt there is some accurate history, but I think the OP proves that the author deliberately organized his stories and contrived their details to suit his liturgical purposes. How else do you account for the parallels I have pointed out?

An obvious case of Parallelomania. That’s how I account for them.

See my post here to understand the absurd places this type of parallelomania argumentation can take us.

I have read much of Bart Ehrman's work, and he would be appalled by the conclusion you are drawing from his statement (he's an atheist by the way).

He also claims to be agnostic. Why would that matter anyway? You did read that bit where I said even critics agree, right? Bart being a critic of course. And I’ve drawn no conclusion from Bart aside from what he has explicitly stated which is that, “Many recent scholars have come to recognize that the New Testament Gospels are a kind of ancient biography.�

"A type of ancient biography" is a far cry from the modern concept of a literal biography.

What's your point? I said nothing at all about modern bios.

[kayky]

Agreed, and doesn't this prove that those who use the Gospels as evidence of the miraculous 'Jesus Story' about God becoming human in the body of Jesus are just plain flat out wrong? Isn't Paul correct when he writes:

And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.

_ 1 Corinthians 15:14

You introduce two new ideas: incarnation and resurrection. All three synoptic Gospels end the Jewish liturgical calendar at Passover because now we enter a purely Christian calendar of events: Good Friday and Easter. So, no, I don't think it disproves incarnation or resurrection. What it does prove, I think, is that the synoptic authors were more interested in presenting the meaning of Jesus rather than what we moderns would consider accurate biographies. Jesus is the "New Law" or the "New Moses."

The early church wanted a liturgy to be read at their services similar to how the Torah was used in the synagogues. So the synoptics authors patterned their texts after the Torah. These are religious texts, not historical documents.

[kayky]

Irrelevant to my point. My point isn’t about who wrote the Gospel of Luke, but that whoever wrote it clearly believed what he was writing had occurred. That seems self evident from the opening statement of Luke’s Gospel.

You mean some scholars hold to a date in the 80’s. Maybe even a majority hold that. Some scholars argue for a much earlier date.

�Our conclusion is that Luke was written just before the end of Paul’s first Roman imprisonment, c. 61-62 CE.� - Daniel B. Wallace

Authorship and dating are relevant. The church would have had to have separated from the synagogues to have wanted its own liturgy.

Obviously not a real person because of the meaning of a name? Surely you are joking here. What about all the other people named Theophilus throughout history? Were they obviously not real as well?

I'll give you that one. But in this case, I don't think we are dealing with an individual. It's impossible to believe a liturgy would be written for a single person.

You’ll have to explain how Luke’s opening statement is a literary device consistent with the thesis that he deliberately organized his stories and contrived their details to suit his liturgical purposes. It seems to me Luke’s opening statement is prima facie evidence against your position.

I think you need to reread the OP. It's obvious that this is only chronological in the literary sense. The events of Jesus' life did not literally align with the Torah. That would require a degree of magical thinking beyond compare.

An obvious case of Parallelomania. That’s how I account for them.

See my post here to understand the absurd places this type of parallelomania argumentation can take us.

You're joking, right? I just took the entire book of Luke and aligned it with the Torah and the Jewish liturgical calendar. I can do the same with Matthew and Mark. And you want to call it an absurd fluke? This requires a degree of denial I've never encountered before!

He also claims to be agnostic. Why would that matter anyway? You did read that bit where I said even critics agree, right? Bart being a critic of course. And I’ve drawn no conclusion from Bart aside from what he has explicitly stated which is that, “Many recent scholars have come to recognize that the New Testament Gospels are a kind of ancient biography.

What's your point? I said nothing at all about modern bios.

You're being disingenuous here. The whole point of the OP is that the Gospels do not meet the criteria of the modern biography.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 3 by bluethread]

You make a good point, but I use the phrase "literal history" in the practical sense regarding how fundamentalists tend to read the Gospels. So I don't see how Goose and I can both be correct. To come up with such parallels would have taken a great deal of contrivance on the part of the author of Luke.

That is because modern fundamentalism is a product of the scientific humanist era. It is an outgrowth of the authoritarian era, but in that era other literary forms were accepted as history.