4.2: The Gospels, “Q”, Jesus, and the Early Church (J. K. Miles)

23 The Gospels, “Q”, Jesus, and the Early Church
J. K. Miles³³

The word “Gospel” from Old English “Godspel” means good tidings or good news. The writers considered the story they were telling “good news.” The good news was about a new king and a new kingdom--one to rival the empires of the world especially Rome. The good news was that this kingdom was one with different rules. It was steeped in the ancient Jewish idea of the Kingdom of God.

How many Gospels were there?

We have evidence that there were multiple accounts of this type claiming to give an account of Jesus’ life. The Gospel of Luke acknowledges this, “In as much as many have undertaken to draw up an account concerning what was accomplished among us.” (Luke 1:1) This is consistent with what we know about the culture in which the Gospels were written. The writer of Luke says there were multiple accounts of what Jesus had done and they were available to him. It is true there are several documents that claim to be a testimony of Jesus. In addition to the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, there is a Gospel of Peter, Gospel of Mary, Gospel of Judas, and a Gospel of Thomas. These are sometimes referred to as the lost gospels, but they weren’t lost.

This is not to say that all of these Gospels have the same credentials. There are good reasons that the early church quoted almost exclusively from Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John and rejected the Gospels of Peter, Judas, Thomas and Mary. All of these other gospels bear the marks of being much later documents and some have seriously contradictory doctrines (Thomas and Peter). Some are distant from the accounts of Jesus’ life and death that we find in the other Gospels (Peter, for instance, has a talking cross that narrates from Jesus’ empty tomb). For these reasons, as a community, the Church rejected all but the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

What is the relationship between the Four Canonical Gospels?

The four canonical Gospels seems to have more in common than they do differences. This is especially truth with Matthew, Mark, and Luke, called the Synoptic Gospels. In fact these three are so similar, many Biblical scholars subscribe to the theory that there is a common source for them. This source is called Q from the German Quelle for source. It is important to note that no one has ever proven that Q exists. Scholars like B.H. Streeter hypothesized a common source in order to solve several questions about the similarities and differences in the Synoptic Gospels. 1) Does Matthew depend on Mark? Does Luke depend on Mark and Matthew? 2) Were the gospels originally orally transmitted and then written down or were they originally written accounts? 3) Can we construct a genealogy of the how the Gospels were written?

While Q is interesting in historical context, its impact it on Christian theology is unclear. Some scholars view discussions about Q as a way to elevate so-called “lost gospels” as rival conceptions to traditional Christianity. If such a gospel contains passages that contradict the primary beliefs of Christianity, what should be done? If religions are essentially evolved institutions, the impact of Q could be minimal. But, if the words and deeds of Jesus are the foundation of Christianity, a Quellum or source, discovered and verified, showed that Christianity has evolved away from the words and deeds of Jesus, it could have a profound impact on Christian practice.

This question of what Jesus thought he was doing is central to what has been dubbed the “quest for the historical Jesus” so called because of missionary doctor, and theologian, Albert Schweitzer’s book The Quest for the Historical Jesus. Schweitzer surveys and criticizes Jesus scholarship from the 17th to the 19th century. Schweitzer finds that Jesus scholars had constructed a portrait of Jesus remarkably like the scholars themselves. Schweitzer sought to put forth his own theory about what Jesus thought he was doing and who he was based on what was known about 1st Century Israel and its social/religious/political context. He saw the quest as a way to unearth the cultural milieu of Jesus’ ministry stripped of the theological biases of the early modernists.

What emerges from Schweitzer’s study is a Jesus who thinks himself an apocalyptic prophet who planned to die in order to bring about the end of the world. For Schweitzer, Jesus mistaken beliefs about himself make his death a tragedy.

Drawing on recently uncovered documents such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, the quest for the historical Jesus has continued. The Scrolls say nothing about Jesus but they do give remarkable insights about the apocalyptic beliefs of first century Palestine. E.P. Sanders, James D. G. Dunn, and N.T. Wright have argued that there is a coherent picture of Jesus can be drawn by using history of 1st-Century Israel and the Gospels themselves. Here’s what we can say about Jesus based on the evidence.

1. Jesus thought he was a prophet in the tradition of Israel’s prophets. He saw himself in the prophecies of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel.
2. Jesus thought he was the messiah, Israel’s king. His teaching was that the kingdom of God was coming into the world. In some sense this kingdom would set to right a world that was fallen, broken, and corrupt.
3. He believed that his death at the hands of the Roman and Jewish officials was the means by which all this evil forces would be vanquished.
4. More controversially, N.T. Wright has argued Jesus believed that he embodied Israel’s God in the flesh. His vocation was to do the things that God did in Israel’s history in the present.

By the “early church” we refer to the church as it existed prior to the Edict of Milan (313 A.D.) which effectively ended the persecution of the Christian church by the Roman Empire. The use of the singular “Church” should not belie the fact that there were disagreements and divisions even before the church gained official status with the Edict of Milan. The early church had its share of controversies as it pulled away from its roots in Judaism (Acts 15) and solidified its structure. There is evidence that factions grew up around various luminary figures (1 Corinthians mentions factions: “I am of Apollos”, “I am of Paul” and the ultra-pious “I am of Christ”). There is good evidence however of a core set of beliefs and doctrine that the early Church strongly agreed on as reflected in the kerygma and creeds. In some ways, we are answering a similar question to who Jesus thought he was when we say what the early church thought it was doing. To that end there are four questions, the answers give a sketch of the early church. Who did the Church think it was (identity)? Where do we fit into the world (meaning)? What did the Church think was wrong? What was the solution (morality and destiny)?

What did the early church think they were? (Questions of Identity)

The early church saw themselves as a new kind of community. They saw themselves as the continuation of Israel but a reconstituted Israel marked off by their allegiance to Jesus Christ rather than the rites of Judaism. As such, traditional boundaries of Jew/Greek, Slave/Free, Male/Female were transcended.

Where did the early church think it fit into the world? (Questions of Meaning)

The early church believed that because Jesus was raised from the dead, that God approved of Jesus’ mission. Israel’s God was the one true God, and all other gods were at best parodies. Jesus was the true king of the world and all other kings served at his pleasure. If Jesus was Lord, then Caesar was not. Jesus was victorious and the world powers were living on borrowed time.

What did the early Church think was wrong with the world and what was the solution? (Questions of Morality and Destiny)

Rooted in 1st-century Judaism, the early Church accepted that humans cannot be the solution to a world of tyrants, war, and idolatry because the history of Israel showed that humans were the problem along with evil powers behind them. The early church believed that what made it possible for it to be virtuous as a new kind of community was the death and resurrection of Jesus the Messiah and the Holy Spirit. Importantly, because the promised Holy Spirit was available to all, there were no boundaries of class, race, sex or wealth that decided who could be virtuous in this new way.

Ultimately, however, the church believed that God himself was transforming the world into one where his principles were at last made manifest. It is important to emphasize that for the early Church Jesus was both alive and already King of the World. Sometime in the future, King Jesus will return to set up a kingdom far different from the present powers and authorities. His faithful followers will be physically raised as he was. Finally, the present powers and rulers will be forced to admit Jesus is Lord overall. The rift between the just rule of heaven and the evil rule of earth will be healed with justice and peace.

For Review and Discussion

1. How does what is discussed in this work compare to your understandings of the practices and beliefs of modern Christianity?

2. What are the Gospels and what is their importance for Christian religions?

3. This piece is a descriptive, primarily historical account of the religion that Jesus preached and those that followed his teachings in the years following his death. What are the potential philosophical implications of their beliefs? Specifically, a lot of the beliefs seemed to be timely and based on Jesus’ life itself and what will follow shortly after his death, like the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth. But these things didn’t happen immediately as expected. What do you think the impact of this was on the religious beliefs of Jesus’ followers? Why?