Matthew – Uniqueness Among the Gospels

Posted on July 22, 2018September 25, 2023 by K.B. Vogelman

Matthew’s Gospel is surrounded by many questions – who, when, what, how – making it a target rich environment for those who wish to challenge its credibility. Parallel passages, dates, authorship and variation from other Gospels are all called into question.

Much of the details of the ministry of Jesus of Nazareth are found only in Matthew. Less than a third of Matthew’s content is common to Mark. Slightly more than a third of the content of Matthew is not in common with Luke … Matthew’s subject matter is in many ways unique.^[1]

In the world of investigations, written statements that too closely resemble each other are immediately suspect of deception.^[2] Variation actually enhances the authenticity and credibility of Matthew.

Truthful, credible statements are expected to be consistent with key evidence as well as with other witness statements, yet characteristic variation is most certainly expected. A basic investigative principal: the more details, the harder to cover a deception; conversely, a deceptive statement lacks details making it more difficult to validate.

“There must, therefore, naturally arise great differences among writers, when they had no original records to lay for their foundation, which might at once inform those who had an inclination to learn, and contradict those that would tell lies…” – Josephus ^[3]

Distinct diversity from Luke can be seen immediately in Matthew with the genealogy of Jesus listed in reverse order along with some generational variations.^[4] Three miracles and at least 10 parables found in Matthew do not appear in any other Gospel.^[5]

Joseph‘s personal circumstances are told only in Matthew such as his contemplation of divorcing Mary for becoming pregnant by another man. Joseph’s mind was changed by an angel’s visitation message that Mary would fulfill the Isaiah 7:14 prophecy of a virgin birth. Joseph was additionally instructed to name the baby “Jesus” consistent with the message delivered to Mary in Luke’s Gospel account.

Combined with Luke’s Nativity account, Matthew’s historical and astronomy attributions raises the bar of Gospel answerability to the highest degree. The two accounts establish a narrow timeline window for the birth of Jesus with five date markers – the rulers of Augustus, Herod, and Quirinius; a Roman Empire registration plus “his Star.”

Exclusive to Matthew are the unusual circumstances of the mystic Magi; their astronomy perspective; and King Herod’s treachery. Without this information, about half of the traditional Christmas Nativity scene would not exist.

Any question about “Bethlehem of Judea” being the birthplace of the Messiah was addressed by Herod’s own Jewish religious experts. They cited the Micah 5:1/2 prophecy to answer the King’s question asking where Christos could be found.

Matthew references King Herod’s death shortly after the birth of Jesus. Details of Herod’s chaotic final days are described by historian Josephus. The Gospel also names secular historical figure Archelaus, Herod’s son, who ruled in Judea after the King died.^[6]

Literary analysis and literary criticism are among important scientific methodologies used to assess credibility.^[7] Integrity of the Gospel alone can be evaluated just based on assessing its content.

One of the most famous teachings of Jesus, unique to Matthew, is the famed “Sermon on the Mount” including nine verses of Beatitudes, all beginning with “Blessed are…” The quoted sermon covers 106 verses through three chapters – details requiring an eyewitness.^[8]

Perhaps the biggest clue to the divine nature of Jesus is from his personal perspective as One who watched Jerusalem throughout its history. The author of Luke chose to include Matthew’s quoted statement of Jesus in his own investigative report:^[9]

^{MT 23:37} “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!” _(NKJV)

Moving to the crucifixion, burial and the Resurrection, Matthew solely recounts details surrounding the death of Jesus. The Gospel describes an earthquake, stones split in two, and tombs being opened with bodies coming back to life.^[10]

Precluding several conspiracy claims, Matthew uniquely describes the chain of custody over the body of Jesus – the crucifixion; the burial by a member of the Jewish Council; the Jewish leadership’s request to Pilate to secure the tomb to prevent a false fulfillment of his prediction of a third-day Resurrection; up until the events of that Sunday morning. The account also uniquely uses the Greek word koustodia, a company of guards.

Morning of the Resurrection, Matthew includes the lone accounts of several key happenings with the angel rolling away the stone from the empty tomb; the earthquake; the proclamation of the angel presenting the empty tomb; the dereliction of the Guards and their report to the chief priests. Later that day, Matthew includes the resurrected appearance of Jesus to women of Galilee.^[11]

Use of common reference materials evidenced by the parallel passages, sometimes verbatim, appears in all three synoptic Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke.^[12] Parallel passages cited as alleged credibility issues can be attributed to legitimate literary protocols of the day.

Copying from another source to serve as a “witness” was a respected form of citation and corroboration. It was common practice to copy from another source, even verbatim, without a citation. Abuses of this practice by the Greeks were the focus of Josephus in his work, Against Apion.^[13]

Authorship of Matthew is not claimed within the Gospel itself. Not penning a work was characteristic Jewish practice for reasons of humility, to avoid bringing fame or attention to the author. Examples of other Jewish works without authorship or a formal identify are the authors of books within the Old Testament, the Tenakh.^[14]

Customarily Matthew is believed, based on sources who lived in very close time proximity, to have been written by one of the 12 Disciples of Jesus for whom the Gospel is named – an eyewitness account.^[15] Other scholars and skeptics with differing views believe Matthew was written by someone else; is a collection of stories and oral traditions; or is even completely fictitious.^[16]

Which was written first, Mark or Matthew, is debatable although clearly Matthew is much longer with much more detail. Many religion authorities believe Matthew was written sometime between 55-75 AD; others view the date range from 90-100 AD.^[17]

Both timeframe possibilities are during the first century when some of the original Disciples were still alive as were probably some from the Sanhedrin who lived at the same time as Jesus of Nazareth. If any details of the information was found to be untrue, these contemporaries presented no evidence that refutes it.

Portions of Matthew were corroborated by the eyewitness account of John’s Gospel written independently from his prison cell; Luke’s investigative Gospel; and secular history.^[18] Considering the customary literary protocols, the allegation of literary misconduct is rendered to be a non-issue.

What remains to assess the credibility of Matthew is its believability. Are the Gospel’s detailed accounts fabrications… or do the unique details in Matthew indicate truthfulness and credibility?

Updated September 25, 2023.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

REFERENCES:

[1] “Matthew.” Easton’s 1897 Bible Dictionary. n.d. <http://www.ccel.org/e/easton/ebd/ebd/T0002400.html#T0002442> “Luke.” Easton’s 1897 Bible Dictionary. n.d. <http://www.ccel.org/e/easton/ebd/ebd/T0002300.html#T0002331> Carr. The Gospel Acco rding to Matthew, Volume I. pp XVIII – XIX. Gloag, Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels. p 32-33, 38-42. Sween, Don and Nancy. “Parable.” BibleReferenceGuide.com. n.d. <http://www.biblereferenceguide.com/keywords/parable.html> Swete. The Gospel According to St. Mark, 1902. p XVII, XXIV. Fairchild, Mary. “37 Miracles of Jesus.” ThoughtCo. 2017. <https://www.thoughtco.com/miracles-of-jesus-700158> Ryrie Study Bible. Ed. Ryrie Charles C. Trans. New American Standard. 1978. “The Miracles of Jesus.” Aune, Eilif Osten. “Synoptic Gospels.” Bible Basics. 2013. <www.bible-basics-layers-of-understanding.com/Synoptic-Gospels.html> “Matthew. Easton’s Bible Dictionary. 1897. <http://www.ccel.org/e/easton/ebd/ebd/T0002400.html#T0002443> Swete. The Gospel According to St. Mark, The Greek Text with Notes and Indices. p. XXIV. Gloag, Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels. p. 33 <https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=chi.090193322;view=1up;seq=25>
[2] Sapir, Avinoam. LSI Laboratory for Scientific Interrogation. Basics and advance courses. <http://www.lsiscan.com/id37.htm> “Scientific Content Analysis (SCAN).” Personal Verification LTD. 2018. <http://www.verify.co.nz/scan.php>
[3] Josephus, Flavius. The Complete Works of Josephus. “Against Apion.” 1850. Book I.5. <http://books.google.com/books?id=e0dAAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false>
[4] Matthew 1; Luke 3. Irenaeus of Lyons. Against Heresies. Book III. Chapter I.1, IX, XXI.3. Ante-Nicene Fathers. Volume I. n.d. <http://www.ccel.org/search/fulltext/Heresies> “New Testament – Historical Books.” Jewish Encyclopedia. Gloag, Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels. pp ix, 39. “PAPYRUS 104 P104 (P. Oxy. 4404) A Very Early Greek Fragment Copy of the Gospel of Matthew.” Christian Publishing House Blog. image. n.d. <https://christianpublishinghouse.co/2020/07/25/papyrus-104-p104-p-oxy-4404-a-very-early-greek-fragment-copy-of-the-gospel-of-matthew>
[5] Carr. The Gospel Accouding to Matthew. Volume I. pp XVIII – XIX. Gloag, Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels. pp 32-33. Gloag, The Synoptic Gospels. pp 38-42. Smith, Barry D. “The Gospel of John.” F. 5.3.3. 2015. <http://www.mycrandall.ca/courses/NTIntro/John.htm> Sween. “Parable.” Swete. The Gospel According to St. Mark. pp. XIX, XXIII. d<https://books.google.com/books?id=WcYUAAAAQAAJ&lpg=PA127&ots=f_TER300kY&dq=Seneca%20centurio%20supplicio%20pr%C3%A6positus&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false> “Luke.” Easton’s 1897 Bible Dictionary. “Parable.” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. 2018. <http://www.internationalstandardbible.com/P/parable.html> “The Parables of Jesus.” Ryrie Study Bible. “The Miracles of Jesus.” Ryrie Study Bible. Fairchild, Mary. “37 Miracles of Jesus.” ThoughtCo. 2017. <https://www.thoughtco.com/miracles-of-jesus-700158>
[6] Matthew 2; CR Luke 1.
[7] Carr, Frazier. The Gospel Accouding to Matthew. Volume I. p XVIII – XIX. <http://books.google.com/books?id=ZQAXAAAAYAAJ&dq=Swete%2C%20The%20Gospel%20According%20to%20St.%20Matthew&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q=Swete,%20The%20Gospel%20According%20to%20St.%20Matthew&f=false> Gloag, Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels. p 5. <http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/008728595> “Gospel of Matthew.” Theopedia.com. “Jesus.” “The Book of Matthew.” Quartz Hill School of Theology. Mareghni, Pamela. “Different Approaches to Literary Criticism.” 2014. <http://web.archive.org/web/20140628042039/http://www.ehow.com/about_5385205_different-approaches-literary-criticism.html> Preble, Laura. “Traditional Literary Criticism.” 2014. <http://www.ehow.com/info_8079187_approaches-literary-criticism.html>
[8] Matthew 5-7. CR Luke 6:20-22.
[9] Mathew 24; Luke 13:34.
[10] Matthew 27.
[11] Net.bible.org. Matthew 27:65. Greek text. “koustodia <2892>.” Lexicon-Concordance Online Bible. n.d. <http://lexiconcordance.com/greek/2892.html>
[12] Fausset, Andrew R. Fausset Bible Dictionary. 1878. “New Testament.” <http://classic.studylight.org/dic/fbd/view.cgi?number=T2722>
[13] Josephus. Against Apion. Book I.1-2, 4-6, 10, 17, 19, 23, 26. Josephus. The Complete Works of Josephus. “Antiquities of the Jews.” 1850. “Preface.” Reed, Annette Yoshiko. Pseudepigraphy, Authorship, and ‘The Bible’ in Late Antiquity. 2008. p 478. <http://www.academia.edu/1610659/_Pseudepigraphy_Authorship_and_the_Reception_of_the_Bible_in_Late_Antiquity> “Custom Cheating and Plagiarism essay paper writing service.” ExclusivePapers.com. n.d. <http://exclusivepapers.com/essays/Informative/cheating-and-plagiarism.php> Cummings, Michael J. “Did Shakespeare Plagiarize?” Cummings Study Guides. 2003. <http://cummingsstudyguides.net/xPlagiarism.html>
[14] Reed. Pseudepigraphy, Authorship, and ‘The Bible’ in Late Antiquity. p 476-479. “Hebrew Bible: Torah, Prophets and Writings.” MyJewishLearning.com. <https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/hebrew-bible> Benner, Jeff, Ancient Hebrew Research Center. 2018. “The Authors of the Torah.” <http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/articles_authors.html>
[15] Luke 13:34. Luke 13:34. Papias. “Papias.” Fragment I & VI. <http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.vii.html> Gloag, Paton James. Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels. p 168. <https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=chi.090193322;view=1up;seq=25> Irenaeus of Lyons. Against Heresies. Book III, Chapter I.1, IX, XXI.3. <http://www.ccel.org/search/fulltext/Heresies> Swete. The Gospel According to St. Mark, 1902. p XIX. <https://books.google.com/books?id=WcYUAAAAQAAJ&lpg=PA127&ots=f_TER300kY&dq=Seneca%20centurio%20supplicio%20pr%C3%A6positus&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false>
[16] Fausset, Andrew R. Fausset Bible Dictionary. 1878. “Matthew, The Gospel According to.” <http://classic.studylight.org/dic/fbd/view.cgi?number=T2722> Didymus, John Thomas. “The Biblical Evidence For a Conspiracy Theory of the Resurrection.” 2010. <http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Biblical-Evidence-For-a-Conspiracy-Theory-of-the-Resurrection&id=4205050> “New Testament – Historical Books.” Jewish Encyclopedia. 2011. <http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/11498-new-testament> Smith, Ben C. The Synoptic Project. 2018. <http://www.textexcavation.com/synopticproject.html> Gloag, Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels. pp. 4-5, 48, 63-64, 106-108. “Gospel of Matthew.” Theopedia.com. “The Lives.” Quartz Hill School of Theology. “New Testament – Historical Books.” Jewish Encyclopedia. 2011. <http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/11498-new-testament> Kirby, Peter. “Gospel of Matthew.” EarlyChristianWritings.com. 2018. <http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/matthew.html> Vick, Tristan D. “Dating the Gospels: Looking at the Historical Framework.” Carr, A. The Gospel According to Matthew, Volume I. 1881. pp XVIII – XIX. Smith, B. D. “The Gospel of Matthew.”
[17] “Gospel of Matthew.” Theopedia.com. n.d. <https://www.theopedia.com/gospel-of-matthew> “The Lives.” Quartz Hill School of Theology. n.d. <http://www.theology.edu/biblesurvey/matthew.htm> Vick, Tristan D. “Dating the Gospels: Looking at the Historical Framework.” Advocatus Atheist. 2010. <http://advocatusatheist.blogspot.com/2010/01/dating-gospels-looking-at-historical.html> Shamoun, Sam. “The New Testament Documents and the Historicity of the Resurrection.” Answering-Islam.org. 2013. <http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/documents.htm> Kirby, Peter. Index. EarlyChristianWritings.com. 2018. <http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/index.html> Smith, Barry. D. “The Gospel of Matthew.” n.d. <http://www.mycrandall.ca/courses/NTIntro/Matt.htm> Etinger, Judah. Foolish Faith. Chapter 6. 2012. <http://www.foolishfaith.com/book_chap6_history.asp> Shamoun, Sam. “The New Testament Documents and the Historicity of the Resurrection.” 2013. <http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/documents.htm>
[18] Smith, Barry D. “The Gospel of John.” “The Book of John.” Quartz Hill School of Theology. “Gospel of John.” Theopedia.com. “Gospel of John Commentary: Who Wrote the Gospel of John and How Historical Is It?” Biblical Archeology Society. 2019. https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/new-testament/gospel-of-john-commentary-who-wrote-the-gospel-of-john-and-how-historical-is-it/>

Luke – the Investigative Reporter

Posted on June 10, 2018September 22, 2023 by K.B. Vogelman

Luke – the Investigative Reporter

For centuries many have endeavored to prove or disprove the Gospel of Luke’s account about the life of Jesus of Nazareth. Some have focused on the integrity of the content, others on the identity of the unnamed author. Debate will continue; however, there is substantial factors to consider.

Among the first to document the identity of the author of the Gospel was Irenaeus, a student of Polycarp who was in turn a pupil of John, one of the original 12 Disciples of Jesus.^[1] Irenaeus identified the author as the Gentile doctor named Luke, the inseparable traveling companion of the Apostle Paul mentioned several times in New Testament books.^[2] Logic is a big factor – educated as a doctor, a source just one generation removed from the Disciple John, how likely is it that Irenaeus was erroneous?

Credibility of a statement can be determined regardless of the identity of the author. In this case, the Gospel author’s first defining point of credibility is where his investigative letter is addressed to a specific person.

Named as Theophilus, this is the same person to whom was written the Book of Acts establishing both accountability and consistency. Josephus identified Theophilus as the next High Priest after Jonathan circa 37-40 AD.^[3] The question is whether these are the same person?

Very clearly the author describes the basis of his investigation:

^{LK 1:1-4} “Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eye-witnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.” _(NIV)

Not himself an eyewitness, instead Luke identifies the sources of his investigation, noted as “many,” being original eyewitnesses and he personally investigated their validity. Evidence can be seen in the quotes and reference parallels found in the older Gospels of Matthew and Mark and corroborating information by John.

From a different perspective, the author’s omissions of certain witness accounts and miracles that are mentioned in the other Gospels.^[4]Nearly half of Luke’s content is unique in which 6 miracles are reported, including the resurrection of a dead boy, and 15-17 parables (was it an illustration or a parable?).^[5]

Included, too, are the exclusive accounts of the birth circumstances of John the Baptist; the identity of his father, Zachariah and mother, Elizabeth, and her role with Mary during their pregnancies; the angel Gabriel with his messages from God delivered separately to Zachariah and Mary, and Mary’s hymn of praise.

Found only in Luke and Acts are the two Greek words, apographo and apographe – a verb and a noun – cited as the motivation for Joseph to take his nearly 9-month pregnant wife, Mary, to Bethlehem 90 miles away. Neither Greek word translates to the equivalent English word of “census,” often imprecisely used in Matthew’s Christmas Nativity story.^[6]

Seven government rulers are identified in Luke, all corroborated in secular history including Caesar Augustus , Tiberius Caesar, Judean King Herod, and Tetrarchs Herod and Philip.^[7] Two “governors,” Quirinius and Pilate, were both identified using the exclusive Greek word hegemoneuo, meaning to act with authority as governors, though not necessarily official “governors.”^[8]

Two specific crucifixion scenarios are found only in the Luke’s Gospel. Quoted is the conversation between the criminals being crucified with Jesus. Upon his death, distraught witnesses reacted by “beating their breasts” in severe mourning.

Distinctively identified and quoted are Resurrection witnesses. Most notable is Cleopas with his traveling partner heading home to Emmaus after being with some of the Disciples that weekend.^[9] Unrecognized, Jesus joined them walking down the road and asked what they were discussing so intently. Cleopas is quoted explaining the sequence of events involving the encounter by the women of Galilee with angels at the empty tomb who proclaimed Jesus was alive and how the empty tomb was confirmed by other unnamed witnesses.^[10]

Corroborating John’s eyewitness Gospel account of the gathering of Disciples and followers in the locked room that Sunday evening, Luke adds a distinguishing depiction of events. Cleopas and his partner had rejoined the gathering telling of their encounter with the resurrected Jesus and, in turn, they were told Jesus had also appeared to Simon (Peter).

Terrified is how the excited group encounter is described by Luke when Jesus suddenly appeared in the locked room. Thinking they were seeing a ghost, Jesus calmed their fears saying “Do you have anything here to eat?”^[11] Jesus then ate some fish to prove he was not a ghost.

Omitted is key information which could otherwise enhance the Resurrection account if the author had chosen to do so. Missing is Mary Magdalene’s encounter with the resurrected Jesus and John running with Peter to see the empty tomb, both reported events by other Gospels that astounding morning. One possible reason for the omissions is revealed in Cleopas’ statement.

Cleopas ended his witness statement at the point when he departed for home that Sunday morning – before anyone had reported seeing the resurrected Jesus. Luke had to be aware of Mary Magdalene’s encounter with resurrected Jesus through his investigation, by knowing Paul, contacts with the Disciples and interviews of other witnesses.^[12] The omission is a big clue.

Only twice in the entire Gospel of Luke is Mary Magdalene mentioned.^[13] She is one of the three named women generally reported to have run back from the empty tomb to tell the Disciples of their experience. Just once previously in Luke, Mary Magdalene was identified as the one from whom Jesus expelled seven demons early in his ministry.

No statements are specifically attributed to Mary Magdalene in the Gospel of Luke and therein lies the potential reason for the omission. If Luke did not have direct access to her as an eyewitness source, then he chose not to include her secondhand account.

Likewise are similar reasons for not identifying the traveling partner of Cleopas and omitting John running with Peter to see the empty tomb – neither were available witnesses to the author. (In his own eyewitness Gospel, John identifies himself as the “other disciple” who joined the race to the tomb.)^[14]

Forthright acknowledgements, exclusive specific details, omissions of information seen in other Gospels; corroboration by secular history; named witnesses; quotes; lack of personal opinions or injections; and ignored opportunities to embellish – all are hallmarks of a straightforward, true investigative report. What then do these characteristics say about the validity of Luke’s Gospel authorship and an investigative account?

Updated November 20, 2022.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

REFERENCES:

[1] Schaff, Philip. “Introductory Note to Irenæus Against Heresies.” Ante-Nicene Fathers. Volume I. n.d. Christian Classics Ethereal Library. 2005. <http://m.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.i.html Schaff, Philip. “Introduction Note to the Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians.” Ante-Nicene Fathers. Volume I. n.d. Christian Classics Ethereal Library. 2005. <http://m.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.iv.i.html Irenaeus of Lyons. Against Heresies. Book III, Chapters I.1, X.1, XIII.3, XIV.1, XIV.1, XIV.2 quoting Luke 1:2, XIV.3, XV.1, 3, XXIII.1. Philip Schaf, ed. Ante-Nicene Fathers. Volume I. Christian Classics Ethereal Library. 2005. <http://www.ccel.org/search/fulltext/Heresies
[2] Colossians 4; Philemon 1; 2 Titus 4. Irenaeus, Heresies. Book III, Chapter XIV.1. Aherne Cornelius. “Gospel of Saint Luke.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Volume 9. 1910. <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09420a.htm >
[3] Josephus, Flavius. Antiquities of the Jews. Book XVIII, Chapter V.3, Book XX, Chapter VIII.5 & 7; Book XVII, Chapter IV.2; Book XVIII, Chapter V.3; Book XIX, Chapter VI.2; Book XX, Chapter IX.7. The Complete Works of Josephus. Trans. William Whitson. <http://books.google.com/books?id=e0dAAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false> CR Josephus. Antiquities. Book XVII, Chapter IV.2. “Theophilus.” Jewish Encyclopedia. 2011. <https://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/14364-theophilus>
[4] Swete, Henry Barclay. The Gospel According to St. Mark, pp. xxxvix – xl, LXX, LXXII, LXXIV-LXXV. 1902. <https://books.google.com/books?id=WcYUAAAAQAAJ&lpg=PA127&ots=f_TER300kY&dq=Seneca%20centurio%20supplicio%20pr%C3%A6positus&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false Smith, Barry D. “The Gospel of Mark.” Crandall University. n.d. <http://www.mycrandall.ca/courses/NTIntro/Mark.htm> “Introductions to Matthew.” Ryrie Study Bible. Ed. Ryrie Charles C. Trans. New American Standard. 1978. “Introductions to Matthew.” Ryrie Study Bible. “Introduction to the Book of Mark.” Ryrie Study Bible. “Introduction to the Book of Luke.”&Ryrie Study Bible. “New Testament.” Jewish Encyclopedia. 2011. <http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/11498-new-testament> “gospel.” ReligionFacts.com. 2016. <http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/texts/gospels.htm> Gloag, Paton J. Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels. pp 45, 204.. 1895. <http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/008728595>
[5] Gloag, Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels. pp 38-42. 1895. <http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/008728595> Smith, Barry D. “The Gospel of John.” F. 5.3.3. Crandall University. 2015. <http://www.mycrandall.ca/courses/NTIntro/John.htm Sween, Don and Nancy. “Parable.” BibleReferenceGuide.com. n.d. <http://www.biblereferenceguide.com/keywords/parable.html Sween. “Parable.” Swete. The Gospel According to St. Mark, pp. LXXIV, 83. 1902. <https://books.google.com/books?id=WcYUAAAAQAAJ&lpg=PA127&ots=f_TER300kY&dq=Seneca%20centurio%20supplicio%20pr%C3%A6positus&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false> “Luke.” Easton’s 1897 Bible Dictionary. 3^rd Edition. Christian Classics Ethereal Library. n.d. <http://www.ccel.org/e/easton/ebd/ebd/T0002300.html#T0002331> “Parable.” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. 2018. <http://www.internationalstandardbible.com/P/parable.html> “The Parables of Jesus.” Ryrie Study Bible. “The Miracles of Jesus.” Ryrie Study Bible. Fairchild, Mary. “37 Miracles of Jesus.” ThoughtCo. 2017. <https://www.thoughtco.com/miracles-of-jesus-700158
[6] Luke 2; Acts 5. Net.bible.org. Greek text. “aprographe <582>.” Lexicon-Concordance Online Bible. n.d. <http://lexiconcordance.com/greek/0582.html> “apographo <583>.” Lexicon-Concordance Online Bible. n.d. <http://lexiconcordance.com/greek/0583.html> The Complete Works of Josephus. Trans. and commentary. William Whitson. 1850. <https://books.google.com/books?id=e0dAAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=census&f=false> Smith, William; Wayte, William; Marindin, G.E., Ed. A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities. 1890. “apographe.” <https://books.google.com/books?id=Cu89AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA403&lpg=PA403&dq=greek+word+for+census&source=bl&ots=LM1MjmCiJt&sig=1_yjJgyNxcCcSWZvf0QK69IJuMw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjx0oPA04DYAhXo6YMKHebvAEwQ6AEIejAK#v=onepage&q=register&f=false>
[7] Luke 2, 3. Net.bible.org. Luke 2:1 footnote #5 and Greek text. “hegemoneuo <2230>” Lexicon-Concordance Online Bible. Josephus. Antiquities. Book VIII, Chapter XV; Book X, Chapter IV; Book XIV, Chapter IX, & XII; Book XVIII, Chapter VI. Josephus, Flavius. The Life of Flavius Josephus. #9, 17. The Complete Works of Josephus. Trans. William Whitson. <http://books.google.com/books?id=e0dAAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false Josephus, Flavius. Wars of the Jews. Book I, Chapter XXVII. The Complete Works of Josephus. Trans. William Whitson. <http://books.google.com/books?id=e0dAAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false> Josephus, Flavius. Against Apion. Book II, #22. The Complete Works of Josephus. Trans. William Whitson. <http://books.google.com/books?id=e0dAAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false> “Pontius Pilate.” Livius.org. Ed. Jona Lendering. 2014. <http://www.livius.org/pi-pm/pilate/pilate01.htm> “legate.” Encyclopædia Britannica. 2018. <https://www.britannica.com/topic/legate-Roman-official>
[8] Net.bible.org. Luke 2:1 footnote #5 and Greek text. “hegemon <2232>.” Lexicon-Concordance Online Bible. n.d. <http://lexiconcordance.com/greek/2230.html> Josephus. Antiquities. Book VIII, Chapter XV, Book X, Chapter IV; Book XIV, Chapter IX, X, XII; Book XVIII, Chapter VI; Book XX, Chapter XVIII. Josephus. The Life of Flavius Josephus. #9, 17. Josephus. Wars. Book I, Chapter XXVII. Josephus. Against Apion. Book II, #22.
[9] John 19. Luke 24:18 footnote Ryrie Study Bible. “Cleopas.” Bible-history.com. n.d. <http://www.bible-history.com/links.php?cat=43&sub=1173&cat_name=Bible+Names+A-G&subcat_name=Cleopas>
[10] Sapir, Avinoam. LSI Laboratory for Scientific Interrogation, Inc. n.d. <http://www.lsiscan.com/index.htm> “SCAN – Scientific Content Analysis (Statement Analysis).” Advanced Polygraph. 2011. <http://www.advancedpolygraph.com.au/scan.htm>
[11] NET, NIV, NLT. Luke 24. CR Mark 16.
[12] 2 Timothy 4; Philemon 1; Colossians 4.
[13] Luke 8, 24.
[14] Luke 24; John 20. Smith, Barry D. “The Gospel of John.” Fonck, Leopold. “Gospel of St. John.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Volume 8. New York: Robert Appleton Company. 1910. New Advent. 2014. <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08438a.htm> Kirby, Peter. “Gospel of John.” EarlyChristianWritings.com. 2014. <http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/john.html> “The Book of John.” Quartz Hill School of Theology. 2017. <http://www.theology.edu/biblesurvey/john.htm> “Gospel of John.” Theopedia.com. Encyclopedia of biblical Christianity. n.d. <http://www.theopedia.com/Gospel_of_John>

A Simple Way to Check Integrity of the Gospels

Posted on July 17, 2017July 30, 2023 by K.B. Vogelman

A Simple Way to Check Integrity of the Gospels

Integrity of the Gospels for many is the first step in accepting its believability. Checking the integrity of the Gospels and its accounts can be as simple as comparing one Gospel account to another, a process known as “literary analysis.”^[1]

Sounds complicated and boring, even intimidating – not so! Chances are very high that literary analysis in its simplest form is part of a normal routine personal activity. It happens naturally when reading the text of a book, magazine article, blog, marketing ads, instructions, maps, etc. and mentally breaking it down to understand it better.^[2]

In the case of the Gospels, literary analysis can be as simple as comparing two or more Gospels for such things as word usage, meaning, consistency, historical accuracy, theme, etc.^[3] Performing any type of comparison or cross reference is a basic literary analysis technique.

Using the scientific methodology approach allows for repeating the process to gain confidence in the outcome or conclusion. For some, a conclusion one way or the other about the integrity of the Gospels may come quickly; for others it will take longer.

Literary analysis first requires reading what has been written (observation); then gathering information (evidence, research, intuitive analysis) to identify the premise; determining the theme (hypothesis); and finally performing an assessment to see if it all stands up to scrutiny (testing, retesting).^[4]

A very close cousin to literary analysis is known as “textual criticism,” another term that seems intimidating and boring…and it probably is for most people. For this reason, textual analysis may best be reserved for literary experts who are so inclined.

Determining the genre of the Gospels may be the biggest call to make – are the Gospels fiction or non-fiction? Consider if the content is about real people, places and events (non-fiction) vs. content that is an invented story (fiction) written often for philosophical or entertainment purposes.

Understanding the theme is a key component by determining the central idea of the writing. Fictions involve characters who are not real although they could believably be real people with resemblances to real persons. As a setting, the work may include real places, periods and events, but the story is always imaginary, artificial, not real. A big clue is the purpose of the author – was the intent to be entertaining, amusing, or enjoyable reading?^[5]

Non-fictions, on the other hand, are written with the intention to be informative about real people, places or events based on historical, geographical or biographical facts. Non-fictions may also reflect the author’s recollection of witnessing events or facts often influenced by personal experiences.

For the Gospels, is the central theme about a real person by chronicling the birth, life, trial and execution of Jesus of Nazareth in the Judean Roman province – historical? Is the theme intended to teach his message of love and forgiveness – philosophical? Or perhaps, is the theme intended to convey a belief in Jesus as the promised Messiah exemplified by fulfillment of prophecies and Resurrection – religion?

Characters in the story: who are they – their gender, background, age, personalities, strengths and weaknesses, etc.? What did these characters say or how did they behave in various situations such as adversity, conflict, competition, challenges, interaction with others, etc.? Does it ring true – are their behaviors under the various circumstances what is to be expected by a normal person?

By now, natural investigative curiosity has kicked in…that urge to verify historical, geographical and biographical information to see if it is accurate. In the case of the Gospels, there are four authors a, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John! It is a target-rich environment for literary analysis to compare and evaluate times, places and circumstances thus setting the stage for direct answerability at the highest level.

Today fact checking is very simple because of the Internet where using topical searches can be utilized to find reliable, unbiased secondary sources such as encyclopedias, bios, historical websites, university library websites, etc. Texts of antiquity can even be referenced via the Internet such as by Jewish historian Josephus, Caesar Augustus, and Roman historians Suetonius and Tacitus. The more knowledgeable about the subject matter, the better the analysis.

Copying from another source to serve as a “witness” was a respected legitimate literary protocol of the day. It was common practice to copy from another source, even verbatim, without a citation. Abuses of this practice by the Greeks were the focus of Josephus in his work, Against Apion.^[6]

Leading to another factor that comes into play with the Gospels is known as “parallel” passages. They appear, sometimes verbatim, in Matthew, Mark and Luke and are called the synoptic Gospels for this reason. Like quoting from other writings was an acceptable literary protocol of that era, so is the use of parallel passages which stems from that same practice.

Parallel passages are still cited as alleged credibility issues of the synoptic Gospels. The completely independent eyewitness Gospel of John often corroborates the synoptic Gospels making it tough to disregard the information found in the synoptics.

In the end, the conclusion will be one reached on a personal level, perhaps influenced by opinions and biases, weighed against observations, evaluation and factual accuracy. Are the Gospels fictional or non-fictional and if they are deemed to be non-fictional…are the Gospels credible?

Updated July 30, 2023.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

REFERENCES:

[1] Jenkins, Rob. “Literary Analysis as Scientific Method.” The Chronicles of Higher Education. 2012. <http://www.chronicle.com/blogs/onhiring/literary-analysis-as-scientific-method/30565> Godin, Katherine. “How to Analyze a Literary Passage: A Step-by-Step Guide.” Study.com. 2019. <http://study.com/academy/lesson/how-to-analyze-a-literary-passage-a-step-by-step-guide.html> Reed, Annette Yoshiko. Pseudepigraphy, Authorship, and ‘The Bible’ in Late Antiquity. 2008. p 478. p 476-479. “Hebrew Bible: Torah, Prophets and Writings.” MyJewishLearning.com. <https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/hebrew-bible> Benner, Jeff, Ancient Hebrew Research Center. 2018. “The Authors of the Torah.” <http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/articles_authors.html> Infomory.com. August 21, 2011 <http://infomory.com/what-is/what-is-literary-analysis> “Introduction to Literary Criticism and Analysis.” National Endowment for the Humanities | EDSITEment. “Introduction to Literary Criticism and Analysis.” National Endowment for the Humanities | EDSITEment. <http://edsitement.neh.gov/sites/edsitement.neh.gov/files/worksheets/Critical%20Ways%20of%20Seeing%20The%20Adventures%20of%20Huckleberry%20Finn%20in%20Context%20-%20Introduction%20to%20Literary%20Criticism%20and%20Analysis.pdf>
[2] Godin. “How to Analyze a Literary Passage: A Step-by-Step Guide.”
[3] Cherran. “What is Literary Analysis?” Ramlawi, Aisha. “Literary Analysis: Genre/Tone/Mood/Theme.” Prezi.com. 2016 <https://prezi.com/ararehyeyma0/literary-analysis-genretonemoodtheme>
[4] Reade. “Selecting topics for literary analysis.” Jenkins. “Literary Analysis as Scientific Method.” “Introduction to Literary Criticism and Analysis.” National Endowment for the Humanities | EDSITEment.
[5] Ramlawi. “Literary Analysis: Genre/Tone/Mood/Theme.” Prabhat S. “Difference Between Fiction and Non fiction.” 2011. DifferenceBetween.net. <http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/difference-between-fiction-and-non-fiction> Cherran. “What is Literary Analysis?” Reade, Dan. “Selecting topics for literary analysis.” Sophia.org. 2017. <https://www.sophia.org/tutorials/selecting-topics-for-literary-analysis> Ramlawi,. “Literary Analysis: Genre/Tone/Mood/Theme.”
[6] Josephus, Flavius. Against Apion. Trans. and commentary William Whitson. The Complete Works of Josephus. 1850. n.d. <http://books.google.com/books?id=e0dAAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false> “Preface.” Reed. Pseudepigraphy, Authorship, and ‘The Bible’ in Late Antiquity. Custom Cheating and Plagiarism essay paper writing service.” ExclusivePapers.com. n.d. <http://exclusivepapers.com/essays/Informative/cheating-and-plagiarism.php> Cummings, Michael J. “Did Shakespeare Plagiarize?” Cummings Study Guides. 2003. <http://cummingsstudyguides.net/xPlagiarism.html>