The Gospels

Introduction

Many readers of the Gospels are embarrassed and evenabashed when they stop to think about the meaning ofcertain descriptions. The same is true when they makecomparisons between different versions of the same eventfound in several Gospels. This observation is made byFather Roguet in his book Initiation to the Gospels(Initiation à l’Evangile) [ Pub. Editions duSeuil, Paris, 1973]. With the wide experiencehe has gained in his many years of answering perturbedreaders’ letters in a Catholic weekly, he has been ableto assess just how greatly they have been worried by whatthey have read. His questioners come from widely varyingsocial and cultural backgrounds. He notes that theirrequests for explanations concern texts that are”considered abstruse, incomprehensible, if notcontradictory, absurd or scandalous’. There can be nodoubt that a complete reading of the Gospels is likely todisturb Christians profoundly.

This observation is very recent: Father Roguet’s bookwas published in 1973. Not so very long ago, the majorityof Christians knew only selected sections of the Gospelsthat were read during services or commented upon duringsermons. With the exception of the Protestants, it wasnot customary for Christians to read the Gospels in theirentirety. Books of religious instruction only containedextracts; the in extenso text hardly circulated atall. At a Roman Catholic school Ihad copies of the worksof Virgil and Plato, but I did not have the NewTestament. The Greek text of this would nevertheless havebeen very instructive: it was only much later on that Irealized why they had not set us translations of the holywritings of Christianity. The latter could have led us toask our teachers questions they would have found itdifficult to answer.

These discoveries, made if one has a critical outlookduring a reading in extens of the Gospels, haveled the Church to come to the aid of readers by helpingthem overcome their perplexity. “Many Christiansneed to learn how to read the Gospels”, notes FatherRoguet. Whether or not one agrees with the explanationshe gives, it is greatly to the author’s credit that heactually tackles these delicate problems. Unfortunately,it is not always like this in many writings on theChristian Revelation.

In editions of the Bible produced for widespreadpublication, introductory notes more often than not setout a collection of ideas that would tend to persuade thereader that the Gospels hardly raise any problemsconcerning the personalities of the authors of thevarious books, the authenticity of the texts and thetruth of the descriptions. In spite of the fact thatthere are so many unknowns concerning authors of whoseidentity we are not at all sure, we find a wealth ofprecise information in this kind of introductory note.Often they present as a certainty what is purehypothesis, or they state that such-and-such anevangelist was an eye-witness of the events, whilespecialist works claim the opposite. The time thatelapsed between the end of Jesus’ ministry and theappearance of the texts is drastically reduced. Theywould have one believe that these were written by one mantaken from an oral tradition, when in fact specialistshave pointed out adaptations to the texts. Of course,certain difficulties of interpretation are mentioned hereand there, but they ride rough shod over glaringcontradictions that must strike anyone who thinks aboutthem. In the little glossaries one finds among theappendices complementing a reassuring preface, oneobserves how improbabilities, contradictions or blatanterrors have been hidden or stifled under clever argumentsof an apologetic nature. This disturbing state of affairsshows up the misleading nature of such commentaries.

The ideas to be developed in the coming pages willwithout doubt leave any readers still unaware of theseproblems quite amazed. Before going into detail however,I will provide an immediate illustration of my ideas withan example that seems to me quite conclusive.

Neither Matthew nor John speaks of Jesus’s Ascension.Luke in his Gospel places it on the day of theResurrection and forty days later in the Acts of theApostles of which he is said to be the author. Markmentions it (without giving a date) in a conclusionconsidered unauthentic today. The Ascension therefore hasno solid scriptural basis. Commentators neverthelessapproach this important question with incrediblelightness.

A. Tricot, in his Little Dictionary of the NewTestament (Petit Dictionnaire du Nouveau Testament) inthe Crampon Bible, (1960 edition) [ Pub. Desclée and Co., Paris.], a work producedfor mass publication, does not devote an entry to theAscension. The Synopsis of the Four Gospels (Synopsedes Quatre Evangiles) by Fathers Benoît and Boismard,teachers at the Biblical School of Jerusalem, (1972 edition) [ Pub. Editions duCerf, Paris], informs us in volume II, pages 451 and 452,that the contradiction between Luke’s Gospel and the Actsof the Apostles may be explained by a ‘literaryartifice’: this is, to say the least, difficult to follow! .

In all probability, Father Roguet in his Initiationto the Gospel, 1973, (pg. 187) has not been convincedby the above argument. The explanation he gives us iscurious, to say the least:

‘”Here, as in many similar cases, the problemonly appears insuperable if one takes Biblical statementsliterally, and forgets their religious significance. Itis not a matter of breaking down the factual reality intoa symbolism which is inconsistent, but rather of lookingfor the theological intentions of those revealing thesemysteries to us by providing us with facts we canapprehend with our senses and signs appropriate to ourincarnate spirit.”

How is it possible to be satisfied by an exegesis ofthis kind. Only a person who accepted everythingunconditionally would find such apologetic set-phrasesacceptable.

Another interesting aspect of Father Roguet’scommentary is his admission that there are ‘many similarcases’; similar, that is, to the Ascension in theGospels. The problem therefore has to be approached as awhole, objectively and in depth. It would seem reasonableto look for an explanation by studying the conditionsattendant upon the writing of the Gospels, or thereligious atmosphere prevailing at the time. Whenadaptations of the original writings taken from oraltraditions are pointed out, and we see the way textshanded down to us have been corrupted, the presence ofobscure, incomprehensible, contradictory, improbable, andeven absurd passages comes as much less of a surprise.The same may be said of texts which are incompatible withtoday’s proven reality, thanks to scientific progress.Observations such as these denote the element of humanparticipation in the writing and modification of thetexts.

Admittedly, in the last few decades, objectiveresearch on the Scriptures has gained attention. In arecent book, Faith in the Resurrection, Resurrectionof Faith [ Pub. Beauchesne, Coll. ‘Le Pointthéologique’.Paris. 1974] (Foi en la Resurrection, Resurrection dela foi), Father Kannengiesser, a professor at theCatholic Institute of Paris, outlines this profoundchange in the following terms: “The faithful arehardly aware that a revolution has taken place in methodsof Biblical exegesis since the time of PiousXII” [ Pious XII was Pope from 1939 to 1959]. The ‘Revolution’ that the author mentionsis therefore very recent. It is beginning to be extendedto the teaching of the faithful, in the case of certainspecialists at least, who are animated by this spirit ofrevival. “The overthrow of the most assuredprospects of the pastoral tradition,” the authorwrites, “has more or less begun with this revolutionin methods of exegesis.”

Father Kannengiesser warns that ‘one should not takeliterally’ facts reported about Jesus by the Gospels,because they are ‘writings suited to an occasion’ or ‘tocombat’, whose authors ‘are writing down the traditionsof their own community about Jesus’. Concerning theResurrection of Jesus, which is the subject of his book,he stresses that none of the authors of the Gospels canclaim to have been an eye-witness. He intimates that, asfar as the rest of Jesus’s public life is concerned, thesame must be true because, according to the Gospels, noneof the Apostles-apart from Judas Iscariot-left Jesus fromthe moment he first followed Him until His last earthlymanifestations.

We have come a long way from the traditional position,which was once again solemnly confirmed by the SecondVatican Council only ten years ago. This once again isresumed by modern works of popularization destined to beread by the faithful. Little by little the truth iscoming to light however.

It is not easy to grasp, because the weight of such abitterly defended tradition is very heavy indeed. To freeoneself from it, one has to strike at the roots of theproblem, i.e. examine first the circumstances that markedthe birth of Christianity.