In thinking recently about the role of gospel narratives in film, I found it interesting that the Matthew narrative was singled out as most questionable. It is usually considered the most Semitic (by "higher criticism") with the fourth gospel (that of 'John') being the latest, most anti-Semitic one -- in spite of the reportedly Aramaicized Greek of the Johannine authors, and the constant reminders of the Semitic origins of Christ (such as Magdalene's "Rabboni" epithet for Jesus). Nevertheless, 'Matthew' was singled out for the version of the release of Barabbas, and much was made of the Nostra Aetate-inspired warnings by the Vatican against harmonizing historical facts from 'John' and 'Matthew' ("utilize the four passion narratives literally by picking one passage from one gospel and the next from another gospel") lest it result in a modern day pogrom. [I'm using single quotes to distinguish the gospel narratives/narrators from the historical figures to whom they are traditionally attributed. The authorship attributions are based on tradition and hearsay, not on direct attributions within the texts themselves.]
Among the four canonical Gospel narratives, I'm struck how the 'Luke' narrative has the most concord with the narrative of the beloved disciple (i.e. the 'John' narrative). There are also some coincidences between 'Mark' and 'John' as well (e.g. the anointing at Bethany), and almost nothing between 'Matthew' and 'John' that weren't drawn directly from the 'Mark' narrative.
In comparing the gospels on congruence rather than superficial similarity of content and style, 'Matthew' starts to seem like the odd one out, rather than John.
Aside from seeming like the most apocalyptic and, in some sense, legalism-condoning narrative, 'Matthew' also contains some disagreements that are harder to attribute to the kind that result from recording accounts from different witnesses and trying to accord them. For example, in the resurrection accounts, it appears that generally, Mary of Magdala arrives in the morning around the same time of the other women but takes off early to tell the disciples about the empty tomb. In the 'John' narrative the beloved disciple recounts in detail the visitation of Mary only alluded to in the epilogue of 'Mark'.
There seems to be a general confusion between the narratives about several angelic visitors after Mary runs off to tell the apostles about the empty tomb, appearing in and around the tomb to the other women who arrive to see to the hastily buried body of Jesus, yet there is a general pattern of personages being both inside the tomb and outside the tomb for Mary and the other women. But in 'Matthew' it is completely different; the female disciples don't discover an empty and abandoned tomb, and instead witness the actual opening of the tomb itself and an angel sitting afterward on the rolled away stone.
For the passion narrative 'Matthew' records multiple earthquakes (one at the crucifixion and one at the resurrection) as well as general appearances after the resurrection by many unnamed resurrected people. In the early part of Jesus' life, 'Matthew' is the sole source of the story of the Wise Men following a star to Bethlehem (based on what exactly?), the historically uncorroborated "slaughter of the innocents," and the subsequent escape to Egypt.
It is said that a man with two watches doesn't know what time it is; with the rival genealogies of 'Matthew' and 'Luke', theologians have had to conjecture that one is the genealogy of Joseph and the other of Mary. Where 'Luke' traces Jesus to David's less well known son Nathan, 'Matthew' traces his Davidic heritage through Solomon. It should be noted that 'Matthew' is less interested in the grandeur of Solomon than the scandal of Bathsheba. In fairness, the author seems to be preparing his audience for the scandal of Mary's unexpected pregnancy with the potentially scandalous unions of the Davidic line: Tamar, Ruth, Bathsheba. The lineage in 'Matthew' is about half as long as that of 'Luke'; it is not clear that it is intended to be complete at all.
Then there is the cursing of the fig tree. The Matthean version is in contrast to the Marcan version. 'Matthew' and 'Mark' both have Jesus curse the fig tree while traveling on the trail winding around the Mount of Olives between Jerusalem and Bethany. 'Mark' tells that it is only later on the way back that the disciples say, "Look, the fig tree is completely withered!" 'Matthew' claims that the fig tree withered immediately before their very eyes, rather like the stone rolling away from the tomb before the eyes of the female disciples in the Matthean version.
Then there is the denouement of Judas the traitor. This is supposedly the issue that for C.S. Lewis made it impossible to consider the New Testament canon completely inerrant as to historical fact. The Lucan author in the Acts of the Apostles considers that Judas met an unsavory end in a plot of land he purchased with the betrayal money. 'Matthew', in the sole story of Judas' remorse, tells us that Judas returned the money, and it was the Temple authorities that decided to use the blood-money to purchase the potter's field as a burial site for the non-Jewish and the unholy/unclean. The Acts account is more similar to the oral tradition that came to Papias (which version was much more over-the-top). For some, this correlation counts against the priority of the Lucan narrative; for others, it is corroboration, of which the 'Matthew' account has none. The version of events in 'Matthew' seems to do little than to have the Jerusalem authorities acknowledge among themselves that the betrayal money is "blood money," and fits in with the Matthean addition of "Let his blood be upon us." In both accounts there's seems to be a field associated with the ruin of Judah Iscariot, known as Hakal Dema' in Aramaic (Ἁκελδαμά in Greek). Additionally, it's difficult to account for the uncorroborated reference Jeremiah in this 'Matthew' passage. Some hermeneutical gymnastics are required to ignore the discrepancies.
The fact that 'Matthew' doesn't get carried away like some of the apocryphal Gospels (e.g. one that has Jesus come out of his tomb followed by a talking cross) seems to speak in its favor. While the Sermon on the Mount seems like a contrivance to weave the logia of Jesus (scattered through incidences in 'Luke') into a coherent message, it demonstrates a certain honest attempt that doesn't reveal a conscious political agenda, as some try to attribute to the narrative. Unlike the other apocryphal gospels, it sticks closely to the 'Mark' narrative like 'Luke' and uses sources of material common to 'Luke' (i.e. the hypothetical Q document). Apocryphal narratives, generally free to embellish to prove their points, tend to tell whatever legends draw the reader in. 'Matthew' primarily contains sayings and activities that concord well with the picture of Jesus in the other canonical narratives. Nostra Aetate notwithstanding, 'Matthew' tries hard to connect to a Semitic audience. It is thought by some to have been originally written in Aramaic.
I suppose that most Christians would consider the formation of the canon (Protestant or Catholic?) canon to be as inspired as the writings themselves. If you were a Christian in the 1st or 2nd century A.D. you would almost certainly have had a different canon, accepting some books now considered apocryphal (e.g. The Shepherd of Hermas or the Didache or the Gospel of the Hebrews) and not having some others (e.g. the Epistle of James or the Revelation of John), depending on the geographical location of your church. If you were a Christian in the mid-1st century, you would likely have had no New Testament canon, probably not even the 'Mark' account, and had to depend completely on hearsay about what Jesus said or did.
It may well be that some apocrypha and pseudepigrapha -- as well as the sermons of Justin Martyr -- contain actual (and some non-actual) sayings of Jesus not otherwise transmitted. Whether 'Matthew' is at the top of this category of informative, if not completely reliable, tradition, is something one has to decide for oneself -- or let someone else decide it for him.
For most, it is simply too much to doubt any part of canon, since that leads to reexamining what we decide is reliable or not. And yet, as a believer in 75 A.D., what would you have done? Almost 50 years have passed since the death of Jesus of Nazareth. If your local elder or pastor had received a letter from one of the apostles, possibly Andrew or Philip or even Paul, would you think it was holy scripture because your pastor thought so? If your 1st century pastor wrote down some sayings of Jesus repeated by a disciple of Thomas who had visited the church 10 years before, why would you have believed it to be inerrant? Would you believe it based on a personal revelation from the Paraclete inside you, or because you were sure that nobody would have been able to remember anything about Jesus in a wrong way for the first 50 years after he died?
Where believers put faith in the power of the Holy Spirit to perfect all pertinent memories (in some way that allows for the incongruities of the gospels), they have little to no faith in the Holy Spirit's power to guide us into all truth. The available scriptures (or "writings" as they are also properly translated) are, in that all too common viewpoint, not merely a tool used by the Spirit who Himself guides us into all truth, but the canon is the Guide that works by some vague (and ultimately less trustworthy) power called the Spirit. Instead of the letter killing and the spirit giving life, the letter gives life through the spirit, and the spirit leads astray without the letter. Either it is believed that the Spirit did not give us scriptures to begin with, or that the Holy Spirit, the Ruach ha-Qodesh, cannot be with us in the presence and power as He was in that time. As certainly as the Spirit lost interest in working healings and miracles through the children of God, He lost interest in revealing any truth so powerfully.
It is as though it had been written in the fourth gospel that when Jesus had returned to the Father that the canon would be sent in his stead, and that this canon would be our guide, our Comforter, our Advocate. It is as though the Bible is the 3rd person in the Trinity. It is as though Jesus is not the Word, but rather that the Bible is instead the express image of the Father's person.
No comments:
Post a Comment