Did you know we don’t know?
10/8/11 – Jeff Murphy
What do you really think about the Bible? Is it a holy book, sacred, never to be touched or
contradicted? Is it only to be understood and read by priests? Is it something to be looked at a few
sentences at a time on Sunday morning, but otherwise ignored? Does the bible mean anything to us
now, 1900 or more years after it was written?
I’m currently taking a class online called Intro to the New Testament as a part of the
Presbyterian commissioned lay pastor program through Dubuque Theological Seminary. The class is the
first of 8 classes I will be taking. I’m now 4 weeks into the 3 month class. As a part of the class, I’ve read
through Matthew, Mark, and Luke, as well as about 200 pages of a book called Intro to the New
Testament. The book is packed with background information, analysis, research, and theories on the
new testament from scholars of all view points. The 800 pages of the book give only an introduction to
the issues, which gives a sense of how much has been written and analyzed from the bible. The book is
well written, but sometimes it still reads like an encyclopedia. It is defiantly not a sit down and read for
fun book. We are asked in the class to read the book of the bible we are studying for the week, watch
(2) one hour lectures, and respond to questions from the professor and classmates each week. One of
the main issues for discussion has been what is called the synoptic problem. Have you ever heard of it?
I’ll try to explain the synoptic problem in my simple understanding. The synoptic problem is,
well a problem. It is the question of who wrote the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, when they
wrote them, to whom they wrote them, and how the gospels were shaped by the writer. John was
somehow as able to stay out of this debate by being so different. Way to go John. The 2nd century
church originally though Matthew, the tax collector, one of the twelve apostles wrote the first gospel.
The 2nd century church believed Mark a follower of Peter, identified as John Mark in the book of Acts,
wrote Mark as an abbreviated version of Matthew. Finally, the 2nd century church believed Luke, a
physician and assistant to Paul wrote Luke. These match somewhat with what I remember growing up
in church, if I remembered anything at all. The interesting thing I’ve learned in this class is that the
majority of scholars think the pattern of Matthew writing first is not correct. And, that the authors I’ve
mentioned are not correct.
The scholars believe Mark was written first. Then, the writers of Matthew and Luke wrote their gospels
with Mark in front of them when they wrote, as well as a collection of Jesus’s sayings called “Q”. “Q” is
apparently a theoretical collection of Jesus’s sayings that has never been discovered. The scholars, my
professor for this class included, believe that the writers of the gospel were not the apostle Matthew,
John Mark, and the physician Luke, but likely evangelists who wrote 60-100 years after Jesus’s death.
The picture that I’m given of the writing of the gospels is an evangelist sitting down at a table to write
the story of Jesus to encourage and record it for a specific church. Each evangelist has heard the stories
and teachings of Jesus for years verbally, possibly had other smaller writings about Jesus in front of him,
but never had the full story as they see it in writing. The writers of Matthew and Luke had the book of
Mark in front of them, the document called Q, possibly other documents, and a full mind of the oral
repeating of Jesus’s story.
The interesting thing about what is then written in the gospels is that much is identical to the
other gospels, but some things are changed, some are added, some are excluded. Let’s look at an
example. What most people would call the sermon on the mount is recorded in both Matthew and
Luke, but not in Mark. Let’s read the opening of the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew as well as Luke.
Matthew 5:1-3
Now when he saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to him
and he began to teach them saying: “Blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”
Now let’s read the opening of the sermon on the mount in Luke:
Luke 6:17-20
He went down with them and stood on a level place. A large crowd of his disciples was there and a
great number of people from all over Judea, from Jerusalem, and from the coast of Tyre and Sidon who
had come to hear him and to be healed of their diseases. Those troubled by evil spirits were cured, and
the people all tried to touch him, because power was coming from him and healing them all. Looking at
his disciples he said: “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.
In Matthew, Jesus goes up on a mountainside and sits down. In Luke, Jesus goes down with them and
stands on a level place. Some call these two passages the sermon on the mount and the sermon on the
plains. In Matthew, blessed are the poor in spirit. In Luke, blessed are you who are poor. My
understanding is that the greek word behind poor in Luke really means poor as in monetary possessions.
For me, reflecting on living in the richest country in the world, “blessed are you who are poor” is hard to
handle, but “blessed are the poor in spirit” is easier to accept.
So which is it? Are the poor blessed or are the poor in spirit blessed? Was Jesus standing on a level
place or sitting on a mountain? Did he say both? Did he preach more than one sermon on the mount?
The answer? We don’t know.
The scholars reflect on Luke and see that he addresses the issue of the needy and poor much more than
any other gospel. The church Luke was writing to is assumed to have issues to address with the poor.
The preaching in a low level places would reflect connecting with the poor where they lived.
Contrastingly scholars theorize Matthew’s church may have been more affluent, and not had as many
issues with the poor. The rich would normally live above the poor – on the mountain top. Therefore,
each writer must have shaped the Gospel and shaped Jesus’s words to apply to their audience. Right?
I struggle with the idea that a gospel writer may have changed, molded, or massaged Jesus’s words to fit
his message. That idea doesn’t sit well with me. I can’t imagine doing that, changing the words of the
son of God, if I was writing a Gospel. But, the truth is we don’t know. There may have been more than
one sermon on the mount. The writers may have had two different versions in front of them or have
heard it two different ways. Different people may have heard it different ways. The gospels come to us
from Jesus speaking in Aramaic, the disciples repeating the story orally for years, then some of the story
being written and collected, and finally 60-100 years after Jesus dies being written down in Greek, then
copied by hand, and finally translated to English. There are lots of possibilities for inconsistencies. Since
we don’t know for certain where the differences come from, the more important issue for me is that I
didn’t know we don’t know.
I didn’t know the gospels didn’t match. I had some sense of it, but had never put the effort into thinking
about it. I didn’t know the gospel writers likely weren’t the apostles, who actually lived with Jesus. Did
you? Does it matter that we try to understand where the bible comes from?
I contend yes it does matter. Our minds are given to us by God for use in his work and discovery of his
qualities. I believe our minds are to be used, especially to discover his Word. Jesus’s example was one
of knowing the scriptures. He quoted from memory the old testament, using 24 different old testament
books. When tempted by the devil, Jesus quotes scripture. In his first exchange with the devil, Matt. 4:4
Jesus quotes Deuteronomy 8:3: “It is written: Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that
comes from the mouth of God.” Jesus also quotes scripture when on the cross. Jesus models using our
minds to understand the scriptures, but I believe that Jesus also commands it.
Matthew 22: 36-37
Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law? Jesus replied: “Love the Lord your God with
all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.”
Love the Lord your God with all your mind. What would it take to love the Lord your God with all your
mind? It seems like a pretty daunting task. It also seems that the only way a daunting task is overcome
is by taking the first step.
It takes me about an hour to read 10 chapters in the bible. That would mean it would take about 1.5
hours to read Mark, 3 hours to read Matthew, and 2.5 hours to read Luke. Each reading is about the
same time it takes, more or less, to watch a movie or a watch football game. I would challenge you to
read the Gospels and examine them. I think loving the Lord with all your mind requires it.