While I’ve already written most of the series I’ve decided to completely rework it. While I do think it will result in a better presentation of the material and contribute more to the discussion, this is going to make it much more time consuming. I do have the goal to have it all complete before my December 25 post which will be called, “Christmas – The Perfect Holiday.”

In this post we’ll be outlining the literary development of the Jesus story. All Biblical passages used in the entire series will be using the NASB which is the most literal of the readable English translations.

The earliest Jesus narrative is an early Christian hymn which some critical scholars date to as early as 45 CE which was quoted by Paul in Philippians 2:5-11:

Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

This version of the Jesus story is a divine being appearing to be human and dying on a cross. He was then given the name Jesus, at his death or resurrection. Interestingly enough, this version of would have been acceptable to Gnostics who did not believe that Jesus was actually a man, but was a spiritual being masquerading as a human being.

Next we have the unrefuted Pauline epistles, starting with Galatians dating to around 50 CE where Paul said nothing more than that Christ had been crucified and raised. In the rest of the Pauline epistles (both with and without refuted authorship) you don’t receive much more than that, except the Eucharist and that he was born of a woman. That latter detail would only be significant to counter Gnostic teachings since everybody in the history of the planet was born of a woman. Peter, in his epistles, says about as much as Paul with regards to the Jesus story.

Mark was the earliest of the canonical gospels, written shortly after 70 CE, so about 20 years after Galatians. It does not include the virgin birth or any thing about Jesus’ life before the baptism by John the Baptist (with a very minimalistic account of the baptism). Mark also originally ended with the empty tomb, that’s right, no resurrection, post resurrection appearances, or ascension to heaven.

Matthew and Luke come later, likely at the end of the first century, and essentially copy Mark and add many more details, including the virgin birth, resurrection, post resurrection appearances, and ascension. John was written around 100 CE, give or take 10 years, and presents nearly a different story entirely.

Paul explicitly denies that he was an eyewitness or that he received information from eyewitnesses:

For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. But when God, who had set me apart even from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, was pleased to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went away to Arabia, and returned once more to Damascus (Galatians 1:11-12, 15-17).

The authors of Matthew, Mark, and Luke make no claim to be eyewitnesses. The author of John does, but fails to identify himself, and again, he presents a different story. We also don’t have any independent mid first century sources that could help validate the story.

There are a few explanations for this. I’ll offer two, please note that I am not trying to create a false dichotomy.

The apologetic explanation is that papyrus and vellum were expensive, so people wouldn’t include details that were already known to the readers. Since Paul and Peter were writing to people they had preached to, they didn’t need to write details they had already preached. Mark told the story of Jesus’ life since the apostles weren’t as readily accessible, then Matthew and Luke included more details including Jesus’ birth, post resurrection appearances, and ascension to fight heresy, each being written for a different audience. John focused on Christ’s humanity to fight the Gnostic heresy that was gaining popularity at the turn of the second century.

The skeptical explanation is that Peter and Paul didn’t know about a historical Jesus, thus they had no details to include about him. The Gospel writers fleshed out the story pulling details from the Old Testament; pagan myths; and Jewish, Hellenistic, Buddhist, and early Christian teachings. The fact that there are no earlier written statements or eyewitness testimonies calls in to question the historicity and the development of the literary tradition closely follows the development pattern of myths and legends.

Next time we’ll look at some of the bigger historical issues.