Wednesday, April 12, 2006

Christianity and Gospels

A new friend of mine was asked, "Hindi ka naman Catholic, 'di ba? Bakit ka nagbabasa ng Bible?"
I was quick to tell him and answer, "E bakit ikaw, Catholic, hindi nagbabasa ng Bible?"
* * *
This has been narrated in the situation of the guy being interested in the Bible. An interesting guy, who is interested in the Bible for intellectual knowledge, due to fear and out of other reasons. Then came this National Geographic Special about the "Gospel of Judas." I wonder where they get this as being a "gospel," when being called a "gospel" has a different meaning. I mean, it's like if they find an old paper, if it talks about Jesus, even if it is not about His life or something doctrinal, they label it "gospel."
Here is a part of a pretty competent discussion on what a gospel is. While I do not agree on some anthro-linguistic observations, it provides proper discussion on meaning and purpose of gospel (I'm being a bit redundant, I think - it is inherent in a gospel to have a purpose.).
 
What is a Gospel
by James Still

Gospel is derived from the Greek word euaggelion and means "good news." The genre of gospels include the four canonical books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as well as some extrabiblical gospels written in the second century. The good news written about Jesus the Anointed (The Jewish Messiah) organized the oral tradition about him into connected narratives to form a smooth transitional story. The chronology that the Evangelists (the anonymous authors who wrote the four gospels) used begins with John the Baptist and the baptism of the Messiah, to his ministry, arrest, death and resurrection. Although a misconception still exists that refers to the gospels as a biography of Jesus--due to Justin Marytr's reference c. 150 CE that the gospels were the "memoirs of the apostles" and the fact that early Christians came to see them that way--the evidence suggests that the Evangelists arranged the stories about Jesus in an order to suit their telling of an aesthetic story, rather than as a chronology of the events as they actually took place.

It is important to fit the gospels into an appropriate genre in order to understand them. The letter-writing genre (that the Apostle Paul used to communicate with the churches in the Diaspora) was well known in the first century. Likewise Jewish apocalyptic genre was also familiar to the readers of the time, so that books such as Daniel and Revelation were understood in the context of apocalypses. But the genre we now call "gospel" was something new to the readers of the Evangelists. Did the Evangelists mean for their work to be read as strict biographies? Or perhaps it was well understood that some amount of poetic license was expected as long as it was based on a core of truthful events?

Due to the belief by most scholars today that Matthew and Luke's gospels were based on Mark's (the Synoptic Problem) Mark's gospel has received a great deal of attention. If the author of Mark's purpose can be understood, then the gospel genre may be understood as well. Form critics emphasize that Mark's gospel is composed of many smaller units called pericopes (pronounced per-RICK-a-pee) that are linked together by Mark into a larger framework. If Mark is seen in this fashion--as an editor or an anthologist--then form critics suggest that Mark obtained his material from either the existing collections of oral traditions about Jesus, or perhaps a pre-Markan "proto-gospel" which codified this oral tradition in a very primitive manner. The early members of the Jesus movement (who would later be called "Christians") spread the stories about Jesus by preaching, referred to by scholars as the kerygma (pronounced care-RIG-muh), literally "that which is proclaimed" and the role of the kerygma was probably essential to getting the sayings and deeds of Jesus to Rome where Mark is believed to have written his gospel between 65-71 CE.

Some scholars still suggest that the gospels are derivations from other genres of the period such as the dialogue, the tragedy, or the Greco-Roman literature piece. Source-critical methods of study suggest that Mark did not intend for his work to be a Greco-Roman biography in the tradition of the period, since he concentrates heavily on the themes of foreshadowing the plots against Jesus and, later, on Jesus' death. This is where redactive criticism has become involved in determining how to understand the genre. Redaction critics study the Sitz im Leben--"situation in life" or the motivation of the gospel-writers themselves in an attempt to understand why they came to write the gospel at all. Redaction critics emphasize the language, style, date and place of composition of a given gospel in order to place it appropriately within a context in order to gain a better understanding of the gospel and the intentions of the author.

Today, it is generally agreed upon that the gospel genre must contain two elements in order to be called a gospel. The work must embody the stories and kerygma of the early Jesus movement and it must organize these elements into a narrative outline.

 
* * *
This is a very fun and intellectual discussion of what a gospel is.
 
* * *
On various "gospels," people who "unearth" gospels think that they discover conspiracies, unknown information, or secret knowledge. What they fail to understand, in my observation, is that they are proposing the truth of the documents without knowing who the writers are, or that the writers really are the ones who wrote the documents, and not someone who is writing in a renown person's name (which has been already verified with Canonical documents).
Further, they fail to realize that whether the documents are true or not, the writers are humans who think they know what is happening. Their observation - no, make that perception , which is a summary of the information taken in by the senses - is what they write. Unlike the Canonical gospels' message, they are telling things that are not referring to the Spiritual need, but a quest for " knowledge" and that knowledge would free you, so they are writing for things other than God's purpose, defeating the very meaning of being 'inspired.' 
(Why do you strive to be free when becoming a Christian means becoming a slave to Christ? That's the ultimate form of existence and the ultimate purpose. Anything that purports anything else is ungodly.)
Non-canonical 'gospels' do not give the concrete message that Jesus gave - God's love as the fulfillment of God's Law. Or I don't know. Maybe it is just the reporters who sensationalize the manuscripts, who do not take the time to read the documents, and focus on things that are not spiritually needed but what their networks would be able to bank on for profit.
What a crazy world. But again, a gospel is just another word for God's Good News (thus, gospel).

No comments:

Post a Comment