English
Archives

 
Are the Gospels historical accounts?

The aims of New Testament criticism

The Gospels are not purely historical accounts, as they have not been written by historians with exclusively historical intents, but by followers of the new Messianic movement, in a religious spirit, with prevalently apologetic and didactic intents, which is why many of the facts narrated can be considered hstorical as they have objectively taken place, while the fideistic interpretations of the same events given by the authors themselves cannot be considered historical. For instance, the apparent fact of the empty tomb can have historical value, while the same cannot be said for the interpretation of the evangelical authors of the Gospels as the empty toms being "evidence" of the resurrection of the Messiah, together with the additional "evidence" of the various apparitions of Jesus. From this ensues that the resurrection of Jesus cannot be defined "historical fact" - as tradition has always claimed - rather, more objectively, it can be considered a historical fact of faith in the resurrection.

A second reason why we cannot define the Gospels as being historical, is the indisputable fact that the original texts no longer exist. We have only copies of originals and of other copies, which often do not correspond or which are, even, reciprocally contradictory.

The authors of the synoptic Gospels all wrote a "first edition" of their Gospels - which do not exist today - attaining from four sources, including the famous "Q source" hypothesized by German researchers. These sources consisted in collections of sayings (loghie) and actions of Jesus written down in several different versions and without a logical and cronological aim, but exactly in the way they passed from mouth to mouth and from father to son during the first decades after the Crucifixion.

Mark was the first of the evangelists to compose the first edition of his Gospel, using the above literary form. This Gospel is called the "Protomarco" by researchers. Also Matthew (the Semite Matthew) and Luke wrote a first edition of their Gospels, attaining information from the same sources as Mark. Only the second edition of the Gospel of Matthew (the Greek Matthew) and of Luke, the one which has reached us with thousands of corrections, addings (the socalled interpolations) and adjustments, must have used the first edition of the Gospel of Mark. However, the Gospel of Mark known to us is to be considered a second edition, unfortunately "revised and corrected" by apologists, just as the second edition of Matthew and of Luke.

Considering the above, in the midst of so much chaos of interpretations, translations and intentional copying, alterations and interpolations accumulated over the centuries, the Gospels which we know today do not always reflect the spirit of Jesus' teachings, the words which he actually spoke and all the truth of the narrated events.

All in all, when you consider the general principle that the didactic or apologetic or political or philosophical aim of any historical narration does inevitably imply an alteration of the facts described, the Gospels present jointly and invariably the following characteristics:

• historical truth of certain facts and teachings of Jesus';
• conscious invention (midrash) for apologetic and didactic purposes of other facts, like all the episodes cited by Matthew with the intention of demonstrating the coming true of the prophesies;
• irrational alteration - even if in good faith - of certain facts;
• alteration of the facts pertaining the two trials of Jesus, the religious one of the Council of the Sanhedrim - which actually consisted in a rapid consultation of Caiaphas as to what to do - and the political one of the Roman prefect;
• subsequent manipulation of the doings and the words of the Messiah, exclusively for didactic, doctrinal and dogmatic purposes of the developing Church.

As for the episodes narrated in the Gospels, we can classify these in four categories:

a) episodes lacking of unanimity;

b) episodes of a not always literal unanimity;

c) episodes with unanimity of the sole synoptic evangelists;

d) episodes contained in the fourth Gospel completely ignored by the synoptic evangelists.

The historical-rationalist critic analyzes the above accounts in an effort to highlight what Jesus actually said and actually did, and so reject all which others let him say and do, by adding to his own reasonings first of all historical, social, religious and cultural references, secondly resorting to logical, psychological, sometimes also scientific theses, marked by current culture, but always bearing in mind that the historical-religious reality of institutional Christianity does not reflect the thought of Jesus integrally, because, alongside his ethical-comportmental doctrine, it also contains the theological-interpretative doctrine of Paul of Tarsus, as well as the "summa dogmatica" of the "Nicean creed" (325 A.C.).

In this context, it is right and fair to precise that the authentic and complete doctrine of Jesus referred by Christ himself in the inspired work "Toward the Light! A Message to Mankind from the Transcendental World" surely represents one of the most beautiful and luminous pages of "Jesuanic Christianity", which none of the evangelists has been able to hand down to us with such simplicity and clarity.

Giuseppe Guarneri (27.6.1999)
Adjourned October 2002

(From: "Third Millennium, which Jesus?" In his works the writer and New Testament critic Giuseppe Guarneri reveals the zeal and the style of the true seeker of truth. As he believes that each single event cited in the New Testament must be examined in a rational and objective manner, without letting oneself be influenced by tradition - he states an example of clear independence of thought, showing us how accurate in-depth studies can be and how they can result in new and logical revelations about the historical reality of the life and times of Jesus.)