A Few Thoughts On Gospel Genre And Why It Matters

By Jesse Albrecht -
"If we are searching for a literary model readily available for our Gospel authors—three of whom were Jews—then we might ask why we would look to the broader Greco-Roman context when “much closer to hand is the Hebrew Bible” (Reading the Gospels Wisely, 26).

Or, as Loveday Alexander has argued, “It is to the biblical tradition, surely, that we should look for the origins of the ‘religious intensity’ of the gospel narratives and their rich ideological intertextuality with the biblical themes of covenant, kingdom, prophecy, and promise—all features hard to parallel in Greek biography” (“What is a Gospel,” 27-28).

So, while our gospels may be similar to Greco-Roman biography in terms of structure, they are indebted to the Old Testament in terms of their narrative. And when we consider the narrative features of the four gospels, it quickly becomes clear that they are stories of God’s eschatological, redemptive, covenant-fulfilling, activity through the person of Jesus of Nazareth.

Or, put differently, they are not merely history—which would be implied by the bios genre—but are, in fact, redemptive history. As Jonathan Pennington has observed, “This is good news, not just a biography!” (Reading the Gospels Wisely, 31)."

Comments

Jesse Albrecht said…
https://rationalchristiandiscernment.blogspot.com/2019/12/are-four-gospels-legends.html
1/04/2020 10:02:00 PM
Anonymous said…
Jesse: If we are searching for a literary model readily available for our Gospel authors—three of whom were Jews...

Right from the start, this seems flawed to me. I can accept the author of Mark was a Jew, but not the other gospels. I assume you believe Matthew and John are the other two.

The author of Matthew was clearly very familiar with the Hebrew Bible. However, the Jews were waiting for a messiah who necessarily had to be a descendant of David (via the male line). The inclusion of the Virgin Birth makes it pretty clear this author did not hold that view, so was very unlikely to have been a Jew.

John is even clearer. In numerous places the author draws a distinction between Jesus and the Jews as a whole. See, for example: 3:1-4; 6:52; 7:35; 8:57; 5:16-18; 7:1; 10:31, 39; 11:8, 53; 5:39-40; 7:19; 8:39-44; 10:31-39. Also, compare to Revelation, written around the same time, but here the author of that work was a Christian Jew. I would not go so far as to say the author of John was necessarily anti-Semitic, but there is no way he was a Jew himself.

Pix
1/05/2020 01:44:00 AM
Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said…
The author of Matthew was clearly very familiar with the Hebrew Bible. However, the Jews were waiting for a messiah who necessarily had to be a descendant of David (via the male line). The inclusion of the Virgin Birth makes it pretty clear this author did not hold that view, so was very unlikely to have been a Jew.

There are no scholars who say Matt and John are not Jewish. That's just standard that's more accepted and basic than saying Mark was written first. It's common knowledge. Matt's connection with the Phrasees, "they sit in Moses seat" pretty well connects it with Jews,

John is even clearer. In numerous places the author draws a distinction between Jesus and the Jews as a whole. See, for example: 3:1-4; 6:52; 7:35; 8:57; 5:16-18; 7:1; 10:31, 39; 11:8, 53; 5:39-40; 7:19; 8:39-44; 10:31-39. Also, compare to Revelation, written around the same time, but here the author of that work was a Christian Jew. I would not go so far as to say the author of John was necessarily anti-Semitic, but there is no way he was a Jew himself.

There were scholars in 19th century who thought that was dispelled by the discovery of the dead sea scrolls. After that scholars began commenting on how Jewish John was, one said "John is the most Jewish." The designation "the Jews" in John is probably due to the time of it's writing and Sameritan in the Johonnine community.

John was written between 90-110, By that time the Jewish Christian had developed a strong sense of themselves as opposed to strictly Jewish communities. There is a John/Samaritan connection in /acts.Baultmann argued fora Sameritain influencein John,
1/05/2020 05:24:00 PM
Jesse Albrecht said…
Micheal J. Krugar is an excellent scholar who is right on target on this subject. Matthew, Mark, and John were Jewish, with Luke being a Gentile. What you present seems to me to come from some radically liberal scholarship.

Matthew focused on legal ancestors as he wrote Christ's genealogy. I am not really sure how or why John's recording of Jesus Christ's claims to deity or criticisms of Jewish practice proves him (the author of the fourth gospel) not to be a Jew.

There is no reason whatsoever to believe that Jesus Christ or the apostles were anti-Semitic. Christ derived His teaching straight from the Old Testament as He taught love of neighbor and love of enemies. Those who persecuted Jews in the name of Christ throughout history were wrong.
1/05/2020 07:07:00 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?

By -
A couple of months ago, I wrote a post about the Gospel of Matthew’s account of the slaughter of the innocents. Therein, I argued that some of the skepticism about the account was unjustified. One argument I made was that the number of children killed in Bethlehem would likely have been no more than 20. Though obviously an act of great evil, the killing of 20 children would be much less likely to be noticed by historians of the time than the slaughter of thousands as later traditions speculated. In response to the post, Peter Kirby asked a few questions. He has patiently waited my response, continuously delayed by work, family, and the completion of my Acts article . Two of the questions had to do with how the amount of 20 was determined. Others with the omission of the account by Luke and the reliability of the tradition recounted by Macrobius. Peter also mentioned that there were other reasons to doubt the story's historicity beyond just the silence of other sources. I
Read more

Where did Jesus say "It is better to give than receive?"

By -
A visitor to the CADRE site recently sent a question about Paul's statement in Acts 20:35 which records Paul as saying, "And remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He said, 'It is better to give than to receive'." The reader wanted to know where Jesus said this. This was my answer: You are correct in noting that this saying of Jesus quoted by Paul is not found anywhere in the four Gospels. My own study Bible says "This is a rare instance of a saying of Jesus not found in the canonical Gospels." Does the fact that it isn't stated in the Gospels mean that it isn't reliably from the lips of Jesus? I don't think so. The Apolstle John said at the end of his Gospel (John 21:25): "Jesus did many other things as well.If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." Obviously, this is exaggeration for the sake of making a point, but it means that Jesus
Read more

The Bogus Gandhi Quote

By J. P Holding -
Image
I first made this post in 2012, and since then I've made a sort of mini-career out of tracking down bogus quotes like this one (including a video version below). It's a sort of fun microcosm of the way information is mishandled in the Information Age. ** I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. – Mahatma Gandhi A Christian can probably expect to get this quote thrown at them at least once in their lifetime, and waved in their face many more. I had it put to me recently, but my experience with this sort of thing immediately led me to wonder -- is it real? The evidence at this point seems to be no. The first signal of a problem was that anywhere I found it, no source was given. That's often a sign that something is being passed around uncritically. Whether online sources or books, no one seemed to have a source for this quote. A second warning was that the quote has been given more than one context. As
Read more

Discussing Embryonic Stem Cell Research

By -
Stand to Reason has published a list of "talking points" that can be used as a quick reference sheet for answering questions about embryonic stem cell research and why people ought to oppose this procedure. The piece, entitled "Are you against stem cell research and cloning?" give good, concise answers to some of the questions that arise concerning why Christians would oppose this procedure when it supposedly holds such great promise. For example, consider the following from the "talking points": Where do we get human embryonic stem cells? We can only derive human embryonic stem cells by killing a human embryo. Removing its stem cells leaves it with no cells from which to build the organs of its body. What is the embryo? An embryo is a living, whole, human organism (a human being) in the embryonic stage. All the embryo needs to live is a proper environment and adequate nutrition, the very same thing all infants, toddlers, adolescents, and adults need.
Read more

Exodus 22:18 - Are Followers of God to Kill Witches?

By -
Image
A few days ago I stumbled upon an article published on a website named Haaretz which appears to be a news site for Israeli news. The article entitled " Thou Shalt Not Suffer a Witch to Live: A Murderous Translation ," discussed the correct understanding of Exodus 22:18. According to the Haaretz article (authored by Elizabeth Sloane), the word "witch" may have been an erroneous translation. And, to read into Ms. Sloane's argument just a bit, the erroneous translation contributed to the deaths of many innocent witches. Specifically, she notes: This quote, found in the King James Version of the Bible, has been widely held responsible for the witch burnings that plagued Europe, and later America, in the Early Modern Period (1450 C.E. – 1750 C.E.). But the murderous practice may have all been the result of a Biblical mistranslation. Now, as I am not an expert on ancient Hebrew, I need to approach translation issues such as this by accessing sources readily
Read more

Revamping and New Articles at the CADRE Site

By -
We have changed the Christian History page at the CADRE site from the old design to the new one. The focus of the revamped page has expanded, with many new articles: This page provides links to websites and articles relating to Christian history, including theological development, notable figures, contributions of Christianity to society and culture, and the archaeological evidence for the facts of the Bible. We have also added four new articles by Darin Wood, PhD: John Chrysostum: His Life, Legacy, and Influence Dr. Wood provides an informative sketch of Chrysostum's life, as well as an exploration into his writings and impact on church evangelism. The Righteousness of God in the Pauline Corpus Dr. Wood examines the crucial role that righteousness plays in understanding Paul's perspectives on justification, propitiation, expiation, and covenant. The Structure of the Apocalypse Dr. Wood provides an in-depth analysis of the structure (or structures) behind the Book o
Read more

A Non-Biblical Historian Accepts the Key "Minimum Facts" Supporting Jesus' Resurrection

By -
In their book, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus , Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona argue for the historical reality of Jesus' bodily resurrection using the "minimum facts" approach. Rather than get bogged down in inerrancy and other debates, they focus on the key facts demonstrating Jesus' resurrection. For them, the key facts are: *Jesus' death by crucifixion. *Disciples' Beliefs that Jesus Appeared. *Conversion of Paul. *Conversion of James. *Empty Tomb. William L. Craig, another significant apologist for the historical bodily resurrection of Jesus likewise focuses, in his accessible The Son Rises , on the empty tomb and Jesus' resurrection appearance. Craig gives special emphasis to Jesus' honorable burial by Joseph of Arimathea and Jesus' appearances to James and Paul and their subsequent commitment to the Christian cause. Craig, Licona, and Habermas argue that these basic facts are generally supported by most of the relevant sc
Read more

Jewish writings and a change in the Temple at the time of the Death of Jesus

By -
The June 2005 issue of the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society has an interesting article entitled "Something Awry in the Temple? The Rending of the Temple Veil and Early Jewish Sources that Report Unusual Phenomena in the Temple around AD 30" by Robert L. Plummer, Assistant Professor of New Testament Interpretation at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. I have not yet been able to find the article available on-line, but older articels from the publication apparently are published on the Internet at find articles . In the article, Dr. Plummer discusses the Gospel of Matthew's mention of the rending of the temple veil in both Luke 32:45 (". . . and the veil of the temple was torn in two") and Matthew 27:51 ("And behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom . . . ."). While many people tend to identify this rending of the veil as symbolic of the fact that there is no longer a barrier between man and God as a result
Read more

A Botched Abortion Shows the Lies of Pro-Choice Proponents

By -
One of the classes I teach at the university is a course on Ethics, and I am using a book by Ralph Dolgoff, Donna Harrington and Frank M. Lowenberg entitled " Ethical Decisions for Social Work Practice " as the text. Overall, I think that it is a good Ethics textbook largely because it provides a balanced viewpoint on the need for values in social work. For example, the book makes the argument (without committing to it) that those engaged in social work cannot avoid making value judgments in ethical decisions because trying to do what is right necessarily involves making an value choice. Also, I book notes that some (including me) think it is ethically wrong for a social worker to cover-up her own values when counseling another person because it creates a false (and ultimately unproductive) relationship with the person being counseled. Still, one of the exemplars in the book gave me pause – not because I thought it raised a deep ethical quandary, but because I wondered how
Read more

Asherah: Not God's Wife

By -
Peter Kreeft once remarked words to the effect that the only thing required to believe any one of the 100 most absurd things that any human being can believe is to have a Ph.D. Such is the case with the recently publicized beliefs of Dr. Francesca Stavrakopoulou of the University of Exeter who argues that God had a wife who was edited out of the Bible. According to God had a wife but edited out in Bible, says British theologian , Dr. Stavrakopoulou believes that the goddess Asherah, who is mentioned in several places in the Old testament, was not some competing false god, but was the wife of the biblical god Yahweh. While I realize a brief article in a newspaper is not going to contain the complete argument, the news source generally gives at least one argument that supports the thesis. Such is the case here, and the argument cited if representative of the good doctor's theory is not particularly good. Here's the argument: After noting that there were competing gods to the God
Read more