JESUS CHRIST

Luke is the longest Gospel of the four and as much as half of the material in Luke is unique to his Gospel providing additional information about Jesus.

The Gospel of Luke is the first half of a two-part work (Luke-Acts). The Gospel informs the reader what Jesus said and did and the Book of Acts reveal what Jesus did through the Holy Spirit following his ascension—a continuous story that was composed to be read together. (more…)

Paul taught that to come unto Christ is to enter a new realm of existence, a spiritual realm. It is to forsake death and come unto life, to put away evil and darkness and learn to walk in righteousness and light. “Know ye not,” Paul asked the Romans, “that so many of  us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin” (Romans 6:3-6). (more…)

The Gospel narratives often highlighted the people’s reactions to Jesus’ words, including Mark’s insight that they were often “amazed” or “astonished” (Mark 1:22, 27). John recalled the reaction to the Bread of Life Sermon delivered in Capernaum when Jesus declared that he was the “living manna” and that all must “eat his flesh and drink his blook,” noting that many of Jesus’ disciples responded, “This is an hard saying; who can hear it? (John 6:60; emphasis added). Apparently, for many, this was the straw that broke the proverbial camel’s back because, as John noted, “From that time many of his disciples. . . walked no more with him” (John 6:66). (more…)

The Greek word apokrypha means “hidden writings.” Clement of Alexandria uses it in this literal sense (Stromateis 1.15.69.9). But, for the most part, ancient Christian authors used it to refer to writings of their opponents, which they considered spurious. Clement says that his opponents “derived their doctrines from an apocryphal work. . . . where they have taken a sound doctrine and perversely misapplied it” (Stromateis 4.29). Ireneaus describes “apocryphal writings” as texts written by his opponents “who are ignorant of the Scriptures of truth” (Against Heresies 1.20.1). Tertullian refused to acknowledge teachings from the Shepherd of Hermas because it did not “find a place in the Divine canon” and “had been habitually judged by every council of Churches. . . among apocryphal and false (writing)” (On Modesty 10.6). The phrase New Testament Apocrypha was not used in antiquity. Instead, it is a modern umbrella title referring to a wide variety of Christian texts that ultimately were not included in the New Testament canon.

For the most part, scholars follow the three categories of New Testament apocrypha used by Wilhelm Schneemelcher: 1) Gospels, which include non-biblical material about the life of Jesus; 2) writings related to the apostles; 3) apocalypses and related subjects.[1] Some of the apocryphal gospels, such as The Gospel of the Nazareans and The Gospel of the Ebionites are known today only because ancient Christian authors quoted them in their extant writings. Some, such as The Gospel of Thomas and The Gospel of Judas, were mentioned in ancient sources, but have only recently been discovered. Some texts, such as The Acts of Thomas, were used by both “orthodox” and “heterodox” groups.

In recent years, scholars have reexamined the role the New Testament apocrypha for understanding ancient Christianity. The more traditional view has been to study them to determine what light they shed on the development of the Christian church, with particular attention to how they compare with the texts that were later canonized. However a recent growing trend is to study these texts in their own right and let them speak independently about the diversity of expressions concerning what it meant to be a Christian in antiquity.

“About a dozen noncanonical gospels were known in the 2d century and . . . the evidence for these apocryphal writings compares quite well with the evidence for the canonical gospels. The attestations do not support a distinction between canonical and apocryphal gospels. Writings of both categories were used and are referred to quite early and often by the same writers.” Helmut Koester is the John H. Morison Research Professor of Divinity and Win Research Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Harvard Divinity School.

Helmut Koester, “Apocryphal and Canonical Gospels,” Harvard Theological Review 73 (1980): 110.

“The value in exerting effort to understand apocryphal literature is twofold: first, once we understand the compositional situation surrounding an apocryphal text, we can then ascertain its potential to preserve credible information about Jesus or the Church that He founded. Second, once we understand how the document impacted Christian communities, we can begin to discern the historical development of the Apostasy within those communities.” Thomas Wayment is an Associate Professor of Ancient Scripture at Brigham Young University.

Thomas A. Wayment, “False Gospels: An Approach to Studying the New Testament Apocrypha,” in How the New Testament Came to Be (ed. Kent P. Jackson and Frank F. Judd, Jr.; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2006), 294.

The New Testament consists of twenty-seven books about Jesus of Nazareth and the spread of the “good news” about him beyond Galilee principally in the Mediterranean Basin. Written by various authors through the course of the first century AD, these books soon came to be regarded as authoritative and quickly acquired the status of scripture-on par with the writings of the Jewish scriptures (Hebrew Bible or Old Testament) that Jesus had approved (see Luke 24-44). Some time elapsed however, between the death and resurrection of Jesus and the actual writing down of the texts that have become known as the New Testament. The books of the New Testament are divided and organized by genre or literary type: first, the four Gospels, telling the story of Jesus; next, Acts, a “historical” book about the spread of the message of Jesus through the ministry of selected apostles and missionaries; then twenty-one epistles or letters; and finally Revelation, a type of writing known as an apocalypse.

Although the Gospels appear first in sequence in the New Testament, they were written after many of the letters. The term New Testament derives from “new covenant.” In this context the books of the New Testament contains the story of how in and through Jesus of Nazareth a new covenant was revealed to Israel, replacing the “old covenant” recorded in the Jewish scriptures (hence Old Testament).

Of the four gospels, only Matthew and Luke give an account of the Jesus’ conception and birth. Written from two different perspectives and containing different details, these two narratives complement each other and together paint an important picture of the nativity, including that Jesus’ mother was named Mary, that she lived at one time in Nazareth, that he would be born near Jerusalem, and that his conception was a divine miracle.

Although Matthew testifies that Mary conceived by the power of God, he emphasizes that Jesus was the son of David by the genealogy at the beginning of the birth narrative and by his focus on the role of Joseph, Jesus’ legal father. Through dreams, Joseph received instructions to wed Mary, accept and name the infant Jesus, and move the family when threatened by Herod and then his son Archelaus. Through the use of quotations from the Old Testament, Matthew further demonstrates how Jesus’ birth fulfilled messianic prophecies.

Luke’s account, on the other hand, frequently illustrates Mary’s perspective and includes more personal and family information. His retelling of the annunciation preserves the stirring angelic instruction that Mary received, and her visit to Elizabeth provided both of them with spiritual confirmations regarding the roles their sons would play. In addition to details of the night of Jesus’ birth, Luke’s narrative also includes accounts of the naming and circumcision of Jesus, his presentation in the temple, and his teaching in the temple as a twelve-year-old.

Some of the aspects of the two narratives that traditional tellings of the Christmas story frequently harmonize provide interesting details when read separately. Matthew gives no indication that Joseph himself was from Nazareth, perhaps suggesting that he or his family were from Bethlehem or owned property there, the traditional home of King David, or that Mary was from Bethlehem, perhaps owning land there. In Luke’s account, when Joseph took Mary to Bethlehem shortly after their marriage, their accommodations seemed improvised. Interestingly, the word katalyma, traditionally translated as “inn” and often interpreted to mean a caravansary or camp, can also mean “guest room” (the other time Luke uses this word, it is for the “upper room” of the Last Supper in Luke 22:11-12). Luke’s account features angels and shepherds, who find the child in the well-known manger, whereas Matthew’s account has the Magi arrive later, and they find the family by that time living in an actual house.

Joseph seems to have intended to keep the family in Bethlehem, leaving only when warned that Herod wanted to kill the child. Herod’s death in 4 B.C. helps date the account, for that is when Joseph brought the family back from Egypt to Nazareth. Finding Herod’s unstable son Archelaus ruling in Judea, Joseph, again warned in a dream, decided to take the family instead to Nazareth which may have been Mary’s home. His fears were justified; ten years later, in A. D. 6, the Romans deposed Archelaus at the instigation of the Jews themselves because of his violence and misrule. This was also the year that P. Sulpicius Quirinus, or “Cyrenius,” began his governorship in Syria. Although B.C. 6 is the date Luke seems to give for Jesus’ birth, historically, it was the year when Judea became a province.

Even the most casual reader of the Bible senses vast differences in the types of materials included in the Old and New Testaments. One obvious example of differences that we encounter between the Old and New Testaments appears in common personal names. In the Old Testament, we become familiar with the names Jacob, Joshua, Miriam, Hannah, and Elijah. In the New Testament, we read regularly of James, Jesus, Mary, Anna, and Elias. In actuality, those New Testament names are the English equivalents of the Greek and Hebrew names in the Bible. The case is much like the names of Paul and Paulo. They are the same name, but one is English and the other is Italian.

The Old Testament has come down to us in Hebrew, with a few Aramaic sections, and the New Testament comes to us in Greek. Some New Testament names have no Old Testament equivalents, as Greek and Latin names had been introduced into Jewish nomenclature by the beginning of the first century. For example, Andreas (Andrew) and Philippos (Phillip) both were Greek names. Marcus (Mark) andPaulus (Paul) are Latin names. As we would expect, when the gospel message spread throughout the Mediterranean basin, Paul encountered an increasing number of people who bore Greek and Roman names that had no relationship to the names of the Old Testament.

Some names found in the New Testament are of Jewish origin but do not appear in the Old Testament. For example, Martha and Cephas are Aramaic names. The New Testament preserves several Aramaic names through transliteration, with the transliterated name in Greek, followed by a translation of the Aramaic into Greek. For example, Mark preserves the Aramaic name of the blind man Jesus met in Jericho and then translated it for his audience as “Bartimaeus, the son of Timaeus” (Mark 10:46). In some cases, the author did not provide a translation of the name-for example, “And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus” (Act 1:23). Barsabas derives from the two Aramaic words bar and sabas. The passage could be rendered, “Joseph, the son of the elder, whose surname was Justus.” Justus is Latin.

In one example, the English form of a name (James) is used in the New Testament even though the Greek provides the transliteration lakōbos of the Hebrew name Yakob. In another, the Old Testament and the New Testament preserve the same name of Joseph.

The New Testament name Jesus (Greek lēsuos) is based on the Hebrew Yēshua (meaning “salvation”; see it in use in Isaiah 12:2, last word). Although linguistically related, Joshua (Hebrew Yehoshua, meaning “Jehovah saves”) and Yeshua are not the same name. The following list attempts to approximate the possible etymological origins of several prominent names in the four Gospel narratives (the Hebrew Old Testament name and the New Testament equivalent). In each case, the name has been transliterated into English: Eleazar (Lazarus); Elisheba (Elizabeth); Elijah (Elias); Hannah (Anna); Miriam (Mary); Noah (Noe); Simeon (Simon); Jonah (Jonas/Jona); Isaiah (Isaias); Judah (Judas/Jude).

In the Gospel of Mark Jesus is identified as a tektōn, often translated as “carpenter” in many New Testament versions (Mark 6:3). In Matthew, Joseph is also indentified as the same (Matthew 13:55). It was not uncommon for a son or dependent to follow in the trade of his father or guardian, so it is not surprising that Joseph and Jesus are identified with the same trade in the Gospels. Additionally people were some times identified with their trade (see Acts 10:5).

Tektōnhas been interpreted in various ways since New Testament times, including the generally accepted terms “carpenter” or “builder.” Joseph and Jesus may have built household furniture or homes working specifically with lintels and joists (the main wood components in a first-century house). Later traditions describe his employment as “making plows and yokes” for oxen (Didache 88:8). Another tradition prefers interpreting the word for carpenter as a homebuilder (Gospel of James 9:3). Some modern scholars point out the tektōn can also mean a stonemason. In a small village like Nazareth, we could expect Joseph and Jesus to use their talents in various ways, including working with wood and stone.

The New Testament contains the earliest sources for information about what Jesus of Nazareth. Some of the material, such as Paul’s letters, was written as early as AD 48 or 49 and shortly thereafter (Galatians, 1-2 Thessalonians, and 1-2 Corinthians). The Gospels begin to circulate sometime in AD 60s. Virtually all scholars agree that the New Testament contains material that goes back directly to Jesus of Nazareth. A significant amount of scholarly activity is focused on isolating the sub-strata of material that forms the basis the Gospel narratives including eyewitness accounts, oral traditions and even written sources. No other sources from the first or second century AD provide material that can be used with confidence that the New Testament provides in reconstructing the life and ministry of Jesus.

“This means that if historians want to know what Jesus said and did they are more or less constrained to use the New Testament Gospels as their principal sources. Let me emphasize that this is not for religious or theological reasons-for instance, that these and these alone can be trusted. It is for historical reasons, pure and simple. Jesus is scarcely mentioned by non-Christian sources for over a century after his death, and the other authors of the New Testament are more concerned with other matters. Moreover, the Gospel account outside the New Testament tend to be late and legendary, of considerable interest in and of themselves, but of little use to the historian interested in knowing what happened during Jesus’ lifetime. . . . the only real sources available to the historian interested for the life of Jesus are therefore the New Testament Gospels” Bart D. Ehrman is James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Bart D. Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings 4^th ed. (New York: Oxford University, Press, 2008), 229.