Peer Review
I am beginning to dig from a non-traditional point. I grew up in a non-religious family in a mostly non-religious city, but despite this when I was in highschool I became interested in Jesus through a youth ministry program. I believe in God and I have read the bible, but I have never been to church, I have never been baptised, and I don’t have any bias towards any sect of christianity.
As a convert, when I was growing up I had a more objective view of Jesus from an outsider's perspective. It was generally along the lines of Jesus was a man who lived 2000 years ago that people believe made miracles and was the son of god and so he gained a major following in the same way other religions have come to be. Then throughout highschool I began to learn more about the details of the religion and what the bible represents. What I saw was really intriguing to me; I saw the lives of people around me seem lighter than my own and wondered where it was coming from? What weight was taken from their shoulders that I was still carrying? It was that simple. I have never really believed the details of the stories, and I find it hard to believe that people cling so tightly to the mythos of the Bible, but I still find my own value in the stories of Jesus and God.
The documentary by Peter Jennings goes step by step through the life of Jesus Christ and dissects the plausibility of the gospels as they are written. The documentary takes from the perspective of multiple theologists and historians. Throughout the documentary there is a key theme that drives home an image of a far more realistic Jesus Christ. The image that they create is that Jesus was a political figure in a time when politics and religion were inseparable. John Crossan says in the film, “The kingdom of God is a political term,” (Jennings) and what he means by this is that when Jesus, or anyone at that time, references the kingdom of God it is intended with the direct contrast to the kingdom of Augustus Caesar, to say that this land can’t belong to any man. It is the story of the Jewish people who were suffering under the heavy taxes of Herod, and they were dissatisfied with the Roman occupation. This fits well in line with the revolt when Jesus was young that rallied under the cry, “There is no king but God,” (Jennings). The common theme is that these are issues that are contemporary to the time and fit into the political views and current events rather than the more philosophical sense that this line is used for in our time. This is one example and I would love to go as into depth on all of the bits where the bible likely deviates from reality but it is somewhat beside the point. In general, they all come down to the existence of a self fulfilling prophecy come out of general unhappiness finally being satisfied by Jesus. But if Jesus was just your average man who wanted to disrupt the powers at be then we wouldn’t still be talking about him.
Jesus is the most important figure in human history. His legacy has lasted for just over 2000 years and is still incredibly influential in all aspects of life. Many believe he is a divine being and could commit miracles, but what has been far more influential than the divine acts are the messages, sermons and stories that he imparted in his time on earth. His words have reached farther than anyone else’s, but there is no evidence that he could speak any louder than the average man. I believe that there is a lot we can learn from how he taught so that we can more effectively spread our own messages.
Jesus taught others in several ways that made his words more understandable and more applicable to people as the centuries past. The first of which is how he was purposefully vague in his use of metaphors as to evade arrest of Herod’s men. This inturn allowed him to present complex ideas in simple words in a more entertaining way. Then the second was that he was filling the vacuum that was created by both the Jewish prophecy and by the need for a cultural leader against Herod. The prophecy gave his ideas and stories the ethos of God, while his social position made him an ally to all those fighting against whatever they saw as tyranny.
It may seem odd, but I think that the most important aspect of Jesus’s storytelling and teaching that has led to its success is that it is very vague. Jesus purposefully does not get to the point because he wants his message to carry more weight than something you just hear and then discard. He wants it to last in the minds of those who are really listening. In both Mark and Matthew the parable of the sower explains Jesus his method of teaching to his disciples. Jesus can just let anyone hear the true meaning of his message. “Everything comes in parables so that` they may see clearly but not perceive, and they may hear clearly but not understand, otherwise they might turn around and be forgiven.’” (Mark 4:11-12) This helped Jesus not only avoid the reach of Herod who was killing people who were spreading similar messages to Jesus, but after his death it made it incredibly flexible and up for one's own personal interpretation. His stories teach general lessons about life and moral values rather than the specific do’s and don'ts. If he has simply focused on the politics of his current day in very specific terms not only would Herod immediately see it as dissent and have him killed but the message would be really limited to the people in his direct vicinity rather than the world at large and the years to come.
In Matthew, the way that this idea of his general speaking can be seen is in the sheer number of parables that he tells. Over the course of 28 chapters Jesus tells 23 parables. Matthew can barely get through one part of Jesus’s story before he has to stop and tell us about one of the analogies that Jesus made up to explain something greater and more profound. Mark only has eight parables. This is most likely because Matthew had access to source material that Mark did not. Both Matthew and Luke who have 23 and 24 parables respectively and this is because they both had access to a book jesus’s quoted material that historians have named source Q
This is how Jesus chose to impart wisdom to his followers, but how does this affect the following after his death. The number of parables gives these general situations that can be used interchangeably with modern day equivalents. For example, the parable of the ten bridesmaids where the smart bridesmaids got into the wedding because they thought ahead and grabbed extra oil so they didn't have to go back to get more. This can easily be changed for students that studied regularly because they knew there could be a pop quiz at any point. The idea isn’t about bridesmaids or homework, it's about being ready at any moment because the apocalypse could come at any moment.
In addition to Jesus himself being vague in the way he gives information, his followers are also very selective about how they present the story of Jesus and they likely withhold information. The biggest missing piece from Mark’s gospel is the ending. The story ends with, “They went out and fled from the tomb, for terror and amazement had seized them, and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.” (Mark 16:8) It's an odd ending for Mark who is believed to have just been writing down what he knew to have happened. He just ends it as a cliffhanger right after Jesus’s resurrection. In Mark Powell’s Introducing the New Testament, he explains that Mark’s abrupt ending could be because the real ending was lost or the more likely reason was that Mark did this for rhetorical gain. (Powell 149) It’s hard to say what else he left out since Mark is believed to have been the first gospel but the other gospels leave out or change a lot to fit their audience and beliefs.
When Matthew is using Mark’s gospel to make his own there is a lot that he does to alter it. He moves stuff around, he removes unimportant details, and he changes details and explanation of context for his audience. He makes Jesus more Godly, the disciples smarter and more capable and makes the Jewish leaders worse. All of this takes Matthew’s Gospel farther from what may’ve been the truth to fit the religion going forward rather than accuracy. (Powell)
Luke and john are very important along these lines as well. Luke makes many similar point to Matthew which is a result of them having similar sources and being written at a similar time. Despite these similarities they still find the opportunity to make changes that are fitting to the narrative that the individual authors want to portray. They make changes that are fitting to their audience because they want to spread the word of god to their respective audiences. (put in sources about themes of money and audience her).
John takes this difference a step farther and changes far more than just a few themes. It seems like an entirely different timeline than the three synoptic gospels. It takes place over three years versus just one summer and it has almost an entirely different set of events. This just shows how malleable this story is. If everything was concrete than this story that people love so much wouldn't have nearly the same credibility that it does.