Why are there differences in the Gospels? Are they historically reliable?

First of all, the gospels we have in the New Testament are not eyewitness accounts. They are all anonymous and we don't know who wrote them. The title of the gospel was added in the second century CE to make distinctions among the different gospels. We believe that they were written down at least 40-60 years after Jesus died. All of them were written in Greek. This is odd given the fact that Jesus and his disciples spoke Aramaic. Jesus's disciples were Galileans and illiterate; therefore, they could not write in Greek. Until the gospels were written down by Greek-speaking persons, a variety of oral traditions about Jesus had been circulating in different regions beyond Palestine, including Greek-speaking regions.

So depending on who wrote or in which community the Evangelist worked, the content of the gospel changed. Therefore, changes in the gospels are expected. Sometimes, the Evangelists (Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John) tell the same story about Jesus differently. For example, Jesus's water baptism in the synoptic gospels is told differently yet similarly. Jesus's crucifixion between Mark and Matthew is told very differently. In Mark, Jesus worries about his death, being shocked and agitated by his impending death; he cries at the last minute: Eli Eli lama Sabachthani, which means, "my God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" This portrait of Jesus reflects Markan theology about the suffering of Jesus. But in Luke, he is so calm and adamant about his death because he knew how he was going to die as a prophet. He prays for those who kill him, saying "Father, forgive them because they don't know what they do." He dies as a great hero of the prophet, who says: "Into your hands, I commit my spirit." Many events or things in the gospels are told differently though the degree is different. Again, this is because the Evangelists edited the inherited sources and registered their theological voices/interpretations that reflect their communities.

But there are also irreconcilable accounts between the Gospels. In this case, one account may be right or both of them may be incorrect. Otherwise, not both of them can be correct.
1) Where is Jesus's hometown? (Nazareth in Luke; Bethlehem in Matthew);
2) Which chronology of Jesus is correct? (In Matthew: Jesus's parents flee to Egypt from Bethlehem because of Herod's threat; In Luke, they return to Nazareth after Jesus's birth in Bethlehem);
3) Where do Jesus's disciples have to gather after the resurrection? (In Mark/Matthew: Galilee; but in Luke, they should stay in Jerusalem);
4) When does Jesus die? In John, he was crucified on the day of preparation for Passover (Thursday); in Mark, he was crucified after the Passover meal was eaten, which is the last supper (Friday).
5) There are also a lot of differences in Jesus's resurrection account.

Then, are the gospels historically reliable? If you study the historical Jesus, you should treat the gospels carefully. Some materials will be helpful, while others are not so. There are some criteria by which we can tell which texts may preserve the closeness of Jesus. This is the area of study we call the historical Jesus.

From the religious perspective, we need to study each gospel on its own, trying to understand the Evangelist's community and theological agenda. For example, we may think of four different images of Jesuses in the four gospels. The Markan Jesus "came not to be served, but to serve and give his life" (Mk 10:45). The Matthean Jesus came not to destroy the law and prophets but to fulfill (Matt 5:17). The Lukan Jesus came to seek out and save the lost (Lk 19:10). The Johannine Jesus was born as a king to testify to the truth of God (Jn 18:37).

The bottom line is there is an unbridgeable gap between the gospels and the historical Jesus. Nevertheless, there are some clues by which we may understand him better than otherwise. Essentially, our job is to seek meaning both in Jesus's time and in the later gospel communities' time.

Among my works, the following books deal with the above issues: (1) Resurrecting Jesus: The Renewal of New Testament Theology; (2) Messiah in Weakness: A Portrait of Jesus from the Perspective of the Dispossessed.

De(re)constructing New Testament Theology

In the gospels, Jesus's death is not for the forgiveness of sins. In Mark, forgiveness is possible through water baptism and repentance. Jesus was put to death by Rome because he challenged the status quo. His radical teaching of the kingdom of God, which embraces the most marginalized, brought him to death. He came to serve, not to be served (Mk 10:45). In Luke, Jesus's death is prophetic death, seeking out and saving the lost. In Matthew, Jesus's death is the result of his radical teaching of the law and his fearless proclamation of the kingdom of God. In John, Jesus's death is the result of his truth-speaking and living. CONTINUE TO READ 

A Canaanite Woman's Faith (Matt 15:21-28)

In the usual interpretation of Matt 15:21-28, Jesus is said to test the Canaanite woman. In doing so, readers often explain away the difficult sayings of Jesus and protect Jesus from blame. The only thing they see is the woman's submissive faith. But the idea of testing is invalid because earlier, in 10:5, he told his disciples not to go among the Gentiles. Namely, his mission does not include the Gentiles. So when Jesus meets the Canaanite woman, he is not interested in her.  

Interestingly, the Matthean Jesus is markedly different from the Lukan Jesus, who preaches God's preferential option for the Gentiles (see Luke 4:16-30).  

The Matthean Jesus reflects Matthew's community that struggles to open the doors for the Gentiles. However, at the end of the story of a Canaanite woman, Jesus finally acknowledges her faith, which needs explaining.  

When it comes to the Canaanite woman's faith, her faith is more than submissive faith. She has faith that God would bless her and her daughter through Jesus, the Son of David. Jesus ignores her, initially. Disciples ask him to send her away. He calls her dog and rejects her request for her daughter because his mission is for Jews. But she is persistent; her faith says she also deserves God's blessing. 

Her faith is not about enduring derogatory sayings of Jesus but about her relentless hope that God would bless her daughter. Because of her faith as such, Jesus changes his mind. In the end, explicitly or implicitly, seriously or humorously, she challenges Jesus's narrow-minded mission. Does he experience transformation after encountering this Canaanite woman?

Eventually, the risen Lord commissions the male disciples to all nations (Matt 28:16-20). Here, women disciples do not appear. That is Matthew's limitation. 

  

Matt 25:31-46?

One of my colleagues sent me a message: “Dr. Kim: Greetings. Do you have any exegetical wisdom on Matthew 25:31-46? Let me know ASAP sir. Blessings and thanks.” Then I responded in seconds: “This is part of the so-called Jesus’ eschatological sermon in which this passage plays an important role that for Matthew’s community caring for the marginalized is key to God’s kingdom now and it will affect them in the future. This story can be read together with Luke’s parable, Rich Man and Lazarus. Hope this helps."

Ethical Mandate of the Bible: Shuv and Metanonia

[Courtesy of FreeBibleImages.org]

While different people understand the Bible differently, I find its root message in these two verbs: "return (shuv) and change (metanoia)." The former is about the Hebrew Bible whose overarching theme is turning back to God although various authors mean it differently. First, it is turning back to the grace of God. That is to remember God's call of Abraham, who is nobody out of nowhere. The beginning of the good news is God's grace to which Abraham responded wholeheartedly. We cannot save ourselves because we are born weak and live in a hopeless world. As our life depends on the sun, our nefesh needs the breath of life and the wind of hope coming from God. Second, we must return to Abraham's faith, which is not a mental agreement to the word of God but trust in him. Abraham decided to live a different life with hopes in God for his future and walked the path of faith until he died. Third, we must turn to the way of God, which is the way of justice and righteousness (Amos 5:24; Mic 6:8).

The latter ("change") is about the New Testament. Especially, Jesus emphasizes the change of a mind and heart for the rule/reign of God (Mark 1:15). Even if the new time has come, it would be futile without metanoia ("change"). Paul also talks about the importance of change that imitates Christ. In Rom 12:2, he says: "Do not be conformed to this age, but be transformed by the renewing of the mind, so that you may discern what is the will of God—what is good and acceptable and perfect." In Galatians 6:2, Paul asks the Galatians to "fulfill the law of Christ."

Our task is not merely to recognize the importance of change or return but to fully explore it in our lives and live it out holistically. We must ask critical questions about transformation: What is the good life? How can we achieve it? How can we make our society livable in justice? Individually, what perspectives on change do we need?

We need to conduct quality research on transformation through biblical, and theological studies and disseminate transformation insights through publications. We also must provide a diversity of transformation-driven programs in relation to course teaching, special lectures, leading seminars, series lectures, and other events with a consultation. The Institute can also provide necessary consulting about the various programs to various groups and institutions.

For example, topics include the following:

• The essence of Paul's theology or gospel: based on a threefold gospel
• Jesus's parables: overview and in-depth study
• A Transformative Reading of the Bible
• What is biblical interpretation? Theory, process, and criteria
• Preaching the New Testament
• Rereading logos theology in John's Gospel
• Rereading Romans from the perspective of Paul's gospel
• Rereading Galatians from the perspective of Paul's gospel
• Historical Jesus and doing theology today
• A study of biblical characters from the perspective of transformation
• Exploring themes of human transformation through the critical study of and engagement with the Bible, CBHT fosters various aspects of holistic human transformation based on self-knowledge, self-criticism, and human solidarity. The Center seeks:
• Enhancing the importance of human transformation both in the academic and public arena
• Providing avenues of interdisciplinary studies regarding the Bible and human transformation; exploring the intersection between the Bible and human transformation
• Providing adequate information and scholarship about human transformation and the Bible through courses, in-class or online, publications, and various activities of the center
• Providing public forums, seminars, lectures, and summer school
• Providing high-quality human transformation education material to academia, the church, and the public (book, journal, and other forms of print and online material)
• Holding a major conference on the issue of human transformation and the Bible
• Raising awareness of diversity and solidarity in public discourse; exploring collaboration with other organizations that work for the well-being of humanity within theological education and across the board· Providing experiential learning opportunities through the center; for example, arranging a travel seminar to foreign countries

Pre-book presentation

 

Western Christianity and the New Testament

 Augustine, Luther, Western Christianity, and the New Testament

Paul as a realistic perfectionist

 

Roots of individualism

Full PDF

One of the dominant characteristics of modern culture is individualism, which prevails not only in the United States but elsewhere. It is not easy to define because as a phenomenon it is complex and varied. According to Elwood Johnson, individualism can be defined as “any mode of thought based on the faith that person may become in himself a prime cause; he may, in fact, act his way out of his own history.” [1] Similarly, Emil Brunner sees individualism as a “Robinson Crusoe affair” in which the individual is solely important considering his own personality. [2] In this view, society is a coalescence of individuals. In this paper, individualism is defined in a way that an individual is capable of anything apart from community, and precedes community or society as a whole. What I am thinking about individualism is well expressed by Bellah: “Such folk owe no man anything and hardly expect anything from anybody. They form the habit of thinking of themselves in isolation and imagine that their whole destiny is in their hands.” [3] The aspects of individualism are so varied and the reasons for this individualism are also so complex that we cannot deal here with the whole spectrum of individualism. Here in this small paper, I will try to trace the roots of religious individualism from a Christian perspective.


Throughout the history of Christianity, where can we find the most significant moments or elements to caused individualism to arise and flourish? I find those roots in multiple places such as in philosophical and doctrinal views, in the Reformation, in the Enlightenment, and in modern culture’s new way of living: communication and information. The root of individualism can be traced back to Plato, about 2,500 years ago. His main idea lies in dualism and intellectual positivism. Especially, dualism was a crucial element that affected Christianity. Under the influence of this philosophy, this world of reality is just a shadow of a real being – the pure ideal world. As a result, human existence in earthly life is ignored. That is, “living together” in this world was somehow less important because people were more concerned about getting to the other world or utopia. In this way, people are more concerned with spiritual or reasonable matters rather than practical ordinary daily life. John Bunyan's great work, Pilgrim’s Progress, might be an example of this influence in the sense that “my” spirit’s journey is an individualistic quest for heaven, which does not need help from others. In this way, a personal journey is overemphasized over community life.


Gnosticism was another Platonic development whose root was dualism. Gnosticism’s impact on Christianity cannot be underestimated because still today its influence recurs in mysticism and various cultic groups. They believe that the only meaningful life is in the spirit because the spirit is immortal and is going to the perfect world – the world of spirits. But flesh is just a shadow and a failure of God’s creation. Another element can be found in one of the most important doctrines of the Reformation: justification by faith. When Luther emphasized faith in opposition to the work of the law (when he interpreted Romans), he thought that only faith, not the work, sufficed for humans to be justified by God through grace. In Luther’s mind, there was no room to see work as necessary for justification. This thinking represented Luther’s psychological, existential struggle with the sinfulness of himself. In this way, he seemed to overlook the context of Paul and the Old Testament when he interpreted Romans 1:17: “The righteous shall live by faith.” Most scholars suggest that “faith," in Romans 1:17 and Hab. 2:4, can be better understood as “being faithful” to God’s covenant. God’s people should live faithfully to the covenant and promise. In other words, the real context of these verses is of the people’s faith that has to do with justice: living together, loving together. Faith is not just a quality but a dynamic action word that cannot be done individually. Rather, it is a progressive, relational word. So, in its character, faith cannot be separated from the action that is involved in the community. In this sense, whether Luther intended it or not, his doctrine contributed to Christian individualism.


In the “Predestination” doctrine that Calvinists formed, some additional roots of individualism can be found. The notion of predestination grace was, in an essential way, a phenomenon of personal religious experience. [4] This is not a general phenomenon. The sixteenth and seventeenth-century people seem to have been very worried about the problem of “assurance and certainty.” [5] This notion of self-confidence about personal predestination underlies a deep conviction that “I” am saved but “you” are not. In other words, implicitly or explicitly, it is easy to judge people according to expressed personal faith without seeing lifelong endurance toward salvation. Predestination is a surprisingly ‘inward and spiritual’ doctrine, in which persons are judged based on their belief and destined to a good or bad place: heaven or hell. [6] Also, it is hard to conceive of any community focus in this doctrine because predestination is done at an individual level, not at a community level. As a result, for these people who believe in predestination, the only important thing in one’s personal life is “my” salvation rather than the “community’s” salvation.


The Reformation as a historical movement also influenced individualism. Through and after the Reformation, reformers emphasized only the Bible as an authority rather than the Bible and the tradition. After the Reformation, the Bible was distributed to many people, and individuals were free to interpret scriptures, not necessarily filtering faith through the community. Likewise, “the priesthood of all believers” can be problematic because, in this way, faith can be privatized, and the consciousness of the community can be weakened. [7] In contrast, the medieval church’s focus was on community, for example, her emphasis on sacraments as a community event and on the church as an institution. I do not mean that the medieval church functioned well, because, certainly, there were problems like hierarchical rule over believers. However, a good part of Christian tradition, such as this community focus, was overlooked by this Reformation movement. I think this is also one of the distortions of the Christian faith.


The Renaissance in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries also affected individualism because ‘humanism’ played a key role in uplifting a human being to a sacred position, contrasting with the church’s role as God’s institution for all people. In medieval society, the individual was a component part of set functions and the social whole was central. [8] The Renaissance movement arose to recover human dignity, opposing the hierarchical control of the church. But the result was such a noticeable thing that a shift was made from a community focus to individuals. This was a seed of the Enlightenment that took place in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.


The Enlightenment thinkers viewed reality atomistically and heralded values of freedom, privacy, self-sufficiency, dignity, and self-determination. [9] The atomistic view was influenced by the contemporary physics that developed atomistic physics. According to this view, the most important foundation is an individual, who has an intrinsic capability and freedom to “dare to know” as a responsible being. [10] Similarly, Andre Vachet stated that in this movement, “autosuficiencia humana” and “los derechos naturales del individuo significan que cada hombre representa un valor absoluto frente a la sociedad y la vida politica” and “igualidad y libertad” were key values in this time. [11] As we see above, individuals have the ultimate authority and value for human existence. Thus, society as a whole is just a composite of such individuals. This is another big shift from the community focus to the individual focus. This root of individualism is the deepest one because it is still affecting our thoughts and behavior.


Individual self-interest was validated in such a way that Adam Smith wrote a book called “The Wealth of Nations”, in which he beautified self-interest as a driving force to an ideal society and emphasized an invisible hand (price’s role in supply and demand) in a free economy. In this connection with the Enlightenment, capitalism is the epitome of individualism. The result is, not surprisingly, that the total wealth of nations increased together with special classes’ wealth (for instance, capital owners) but most individuals sacrificed themselves for their wealth. This was not even the result that Enlightenment thinkers expected because they strongly believed that individual freedom and the free economy would lead to the most idealistic society.


Since the Enlightenment, we have lived under its influence. For example, the main idea of the Declaration of Independence in the United States was borrowed from the Enlightenment: Personal rights and freedom were keys in it. Yes, we need personal freedom and rights with human dignity. But the problem is the imbalance between private and public life. To put it another way, frequently, the responsibilities of freedom within a wider community such as a local community, nation, and so forth, were simply forgotten.


One of the effects of the Enlightenment can be found in Puritanism in America. Part of Puritanism’s focus was on individual discipline, thrift, hard work, and personal success. As seen from the previous section, the Enlightenment’s focus lies in human positivism in the sense that “I” can do anything based on the philosophy of self-reliance and personal freedom. Likewise, from the Frontier mentality in the time of “Westward expansion,” we can find a clue that they had to live in such a way in order to survive. What would they have seen in the wilderness on the way to the West? Probably, they might have thought about their destinies, facing opportunities and obstacles before them. Opportunities may be seen in building a new kingdom of their race by driving out Indians. Obstacles were more inward matters, facing physical and mental loneliness plus the risk of life in the midst of Frontier wars. The possible option they could take was to have a belief that “I” can do anything in the name of God. Again, their minds were half filled with a spirit of Enlightenment and the others half filled with a Christian theology of providence (America).


During the second half of the twentieth century, we are experiencing a new way of life, which is a highly information-based society with the increasing use of the Internet. Modern complex culture, characterized by consumerism and dreadful capitalism, is one of the places where we can find the root of individualism. In this highly efficient capitalistic society, self-interest is the basis of the economy. [12] The modern individual is moved by self-interest. Self is a real criterion in deciding an important policy in internal and foreign affairs. As I mentioned previously in Adam Smith’s book, self-interest is treated as valid and sacred in every place. Why is self-interest popular in this society? Maybe a clue can be found in the idea of “liberty," which was one of the important values of the Enlightenment. Today liberty means the spirit of enterprise and the right to multiply wealth and power for oneself. [13] Rational individuals are concerned about their own welfare which characterizes Enlightenment thought. [14]


In a commercial culture, religion is a product in the market. [15] People are as free to choose a religion as any product on the market. Like a commercial business, the marketing strategy is used by some churches, for example, by using mass media, advertising church programs, and sermons, researching “customers’” needs, and solving “customers’” claims. Some approach a niche market, targeting a specific customer group to secure profit and maintain business. Their marketing strategy focuses on customers’ needs, rather than asking whether the needs are really good for customers or not. For example, a certain church is marketing a health product (focusing on and developing a program about mental and physical health because modern men and women are very concerned about their health), while another church is marketing a new project of building a huge hospital. [16]


In this culture of individualism, I ask myself, “What is the church?” Now it is evident where we should go to correct the distortions of individualism. The church is an institution to foster community life in the body of Christ. It is urgent to recover our memory of the community. [17] A community is a whole, more than the sum of individuals. A community has its own story and tradition which cannot suddenly be replaced by any logical doctrine. “A community and a tradition are capable of sustaining genuine individuality and nurturing both public and private lives." [18] When God created man and woman, what was God’s will? God wanted humans to live in a community, respecting each other and helping one another. God made human beings in the image of God (Gen. 1:26). What is the image of God with humanity? Or what is the essence of the image of God? The divine love is the cause of human existence. So, we are asked to live in a community, loving one another without claiming our individual rights all the time. To build up a community in the love of Jesus Christ, Christians need to suspend their freedom for the weak.

 

My writing style

In my academic writing, I try to defy jargon and complex sentences. My writing style is poetic, and I write from the perspective of readers. When I was proofreading typeset pages, I saw this consistent style again. I was confident in what I wrote. I cannot believe that I wrote this book. "How to Read Paul" provides teachers, students, and interested lay readers with a clear, user-friendly portrait of the apostle, informed by a critical, yet appreciative, integration of the new perspective on Paul, emphasizing the faithfulness of Christ as well as believers' participation in Christ.