Christianities in the Bible (part 1)
One of the issues with which I have recently been wrestling is that there are so many versions of the Christian faith. Even as far back as the Apostle Paul, there have been differing opinions as to what it meant to be a follower of Christ.
To think about this issue is, in and of itself, quite difficult, especially if one believes that there is a particular, unified narrative and theology to be found in the New Testament. In other words, if you think that all the books of the New Testament say and think the same thing, it is hard to consider the possibility that they do not. It is even more difficult to think that there are voices in the New Testament that are opposed to other voices in that same New Testament.
Before we approach that idea, it should be demonstrated that there are different opinions in the New Testament. For example we see from Matthew and Luke that there were conflicting accounts of Jesus’ birth and lineage. If we were to go to Mark or John for clarification, we would find that they do not mention the stories of Jesus' birth at all.
Likewise there were different opinions about Jesus was the issue of at what point he became the Christ. Was it before time as the Gospel according to John states or was it as his baptism as Mark implies? Or was it at the resurrection as Acts seems to imply (Acts 2:32)?
In the Gospel of Mark, the author portrays the disciples and those close to Jesus as those who As the do not really get it. Particularly to the idea of Jesus’ suffering and death, the disciples express the greatest misunderstanding. This is a theme that acts as, in a musical term, something of a crescendo. Initially the misunderstanding is minuscule but, by the end of the story, it is the overshadowing theme for the disciples who will have not only misunderstood Jesus, but abandoned him to his fate
This theme is one that the reader can observe. Not only as an observer, but the reader can pick up on the sense of tragedy that surrounds Jesus and his mission: he is the one sent by God; he is the one people are looking for, but he will not be recognized as such. Perhaps the greater tragedy is that, as the story progresses, when Jesus does seek to make himself clearly understood to the disciples, it does not work.
While this is a literary and narrative device regarding the disciples and their misunderstanding, it could well also be something of a thinly veiled commentary on the (at that time present or emerging) leaders of the church. The author (certainly not alone in the canonical Gospels) paints a dim picture of those who sought to follow Jesus. One wonders how any of these men could ever take the mantle of responsibility of being spokespersons for Jesus and the radical Kingdom of God. Without the book of Acts, one would have a hard time seeing much redemption for those who forfeited Jesus in the night.
This isn’t the only place where an author seems to make a commentary on the character of a church leader. Paul’s letter to the Galatians certainly paints a picture of Peter that is both unflattering and certainly demonstrates that he is not the head of the Jerusalem church (see Galatians 2:11-14). The author of John seems to go to great pains to stress that Thomas doubted while still retaining the proclamation from Thomas, “My Lord and my God!”
Gregory Riley, in his book Resurrection Reconsidered, suggests that perhaps the intent of the author of John in particularly mentioning Thomas as a doubter is to cast some doubt on his character and, thereby, provide a somewhat disparaging account of the leader/founder of a Christian sect that differed in ideology and theology from the one to which the author belonged.[1] Yet the author of Mark does not specifically target a disciple, though his portrayal of Peter is less than stellar. However, the account of Peter is echoed in all four canonical Gospels where the story of Thomas is brought to the fore only in John.
This is where, if we haven't already caused great consternation and head-scratching, we leave the traditional map.
To think about this issue is, in and of itself, quite difficult, especially if one believes that there is a particular, unified narrative and theology to be found in the New Testament. In other words, if you think that all the books of the New Testament say and think the same thing, it is hard to consider the possibility that they do not. It is even more difficult to think that there are voices in the New Testament that are opposed to other voices in that same New Testament.
Before we approach that idea, it should be demonstrated that there are different opinions in the New Testament. For example we see from Matthew and Luke that there were conflicting accounts of Jesus’ birth and lineage. If we were to go to Mark or John for clarification, we would find that they do not mention the stories of Jesus' birth at all.
Likewise there were different opinions about Jesus was the issue of at what point he became the Christ. Was it before time as the Gospel according to John states or was it as his baptism as Mark implies? Or was it at the resurrection as Acts seems to imply (Acts 2:32)?
In the Gospel of Mark, the author portrays the disciples and those close to Jesus as those who As the do not really get it. Particularly to the idea of Jesus’ suffering and death, the disciples express the greatest misunderstanding. This is a theme that acts as, in a musical term, something of a crescendo. Initially the misunderstanding is minuscule but, by the end of the story, it is the overshadowing theme for the disciples who will have not only misunderstood Jesus, but abandoned him to his fate
This theme is one that the reader can observe. Not only as an observer, but the reader can pick up on the sense of tragedy that surrounds Jesus and his mission: he is the one sent by God; he is the one people are looking for, but he will not be recognized as such. Perhaps the greater tragedy is that, as the story progresses, when Jesus does seek to make himself clearly understood to the disciples, it does not work.
While this is a literary and narrative device regarding the disciples and their misunderstanding, it could well also be something of a thinly veiled commentary on the (at that time present or emerging) leaders of the church. The author (certainly not alone in the canonical Gospels) paints a dim picture of those who sought to follow Jesus. One wonders how any of these men could ever take the mantle of responsibility of being spokespersons for Jesus and the radical Kingdom of God. Without the book of Acts, one would have a hard time seeing much redemption for those who forfeited Jesus in the night.
This isn’t the only place where an author seems to make a commentary on the character of a church leader. Paul’s letter to the Galatians certainly paints a picture of Peter that is both unflattering and certainly demonstrates that he is not the head of the Jerusalem church (see Galatians 2:11-14). The author of John seems to go to great pains to stress that Thomas doubted while still retaining the proclamation from Thomas, “My Lord and my God!”
Gregory Riley, in his book Resurrection Reconsidered, suggests that perhaps the intent of the author of John in particularly mentioning Thomas as a doubter is to cast some doubt on his character and, thereby, provide a somewhat disparaging account of the leader/founder of a Christian sect that differed in ideology and theology from the one to which the author belonged.[1] Yet the author of Mark does not specifically target a disciple, though his portrayal of Peter is less than stellar. However, the account of Peter is echoed in all four canonical Gospels where the story of Thomas is brought to the fore only in John.
This is where, if we haven't already caused great consternation and head-scratching, we leave the traditional map.
Comments
Post a Comment