1.1 Preface
Many others have extensively written on this subject, but I thought necessary to join them due to the many queries that are continuously sent my way. This essay is a small
compilation of answers, product of years of study, research and critical analysis as part of the greater mission of ending the generational baseless hatred between Christianity and Judaism. The main issue we are going to deal with is the proper way to approach the Gospels in the so called “New Testament”. It’s not my intention to bombard the reader with unnecessary information or extensive explanations, so this work can be considered an overview.
1.2 What are the Gospels
Gospel [heb. besorah] or Evangelion means “annunciation” or “good tidings”,1 and it’s the name given by tradition to a collection of books that narrate the life and teachings of the famous master of Galilee, Yeshua (a.k.a Jesus) of Nazareth. Counting the Gnostic, Christian and Jewish ones, there have been found more than 50 different Gospels.
Most of them were considered spurious inventions, made with the intention to make Yeshua fit an agenda, but there’s a historical track which leads us to the ones that come from his direct followers – including some that didn’t make it to the Catholic canon.
1.3 The authoritative Gospels
(Note: The following information is given in order to trace back the original Gospels, so the theological inclinations of the following people result irrelevant for our purpose.)
• There are some that attribute the canonization of the N”T to the Christian Council of Trullan (692 CE) and others to the Council convened by the Roman emperor Constantine: The Nicea’s Council2 (325 CE). And although there is some truth in the latter, the authority of the canonical or ‘authoritative’ Gospels (together with the letters of Paul)3 were not in dispute among the majority of believers, and can be traced back to the 1st Century.4 • Most apocryphal Gospels fell into disuse and eventually disappeared. Obviously, the fact that the emperor Constantine and the bishop Athanasius (367 CE) commanded to burn the books they considered ‘un-orthodox’ had also a lot to do with this.5 One who believes in the word of God might say that Divine Providence was under this; because by Divine Providence we have the Torah, the Prophets and the words of our sages as we have them today, and by Divine Providence each generation receives the books they need to receive. Even the mere existence of Christianity and Judaism are part of Divine Providence.6 • From 120 to 180 CE, we have sources evidencing the existence of Gospels in both Aramaic and Greek. For instance, Justin Martyr (c. 155 CE) says that it was customary to read on Sundays the books of the Prophets and also the Gospels which he calls: ‘memoirs of the apostles’ (First Apology, 67:3).
• By the years 160-172 CE, Tatian (a Syrian Gnostic) composed the Diatessaron; an Aramaic harmonization of 4 Gospels (namely: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John). According to Eusebious the same Tatian rejected Acts but paraphrased Paul (cf. Hist. Eccl. IV:29:5-6).
• In the year 140 CE Marcion ‘the heretic’ rejected the Hebrew Bible and anything Jewish and composed his own Biblical canon, based on material that was common to Eastern and Western Christians; namely some letters of Paul and his adulterated version of Luke.7 How did he call this canon? “The New Testament” – a name that ironically remains until today. The Christians in that time acknowledged Marcion’s changes on Luke, but didn’t deny Luke or Paul’s authenticity.8
• Ireneaus (180 CE) in his explanation of the tetramorph mentions by name the four Gospels: Mark, Luke, John and Matthew9, and gives us a tradition concerning who wrote each Gospel.10 Such tradition dates back to Papias,11 the overseer of Hierapolis (95-120 CE); who at the same time cites from his teacher Yohanan the elder (a.k.a John the Presbyter).12 He had said that Mark was the interpreter of Peter (Keifa)13 and that Matthew “wrote his narrations in Hebrew language but each one interpreted them as he could” (Exegesis of the Dominical Logia). The common critical estimated date of the Gospels is as follows:14
Mark: c. 65-70 CE
Matthew: c. 80-85 CE
Luke: c. 85-90 CE
John: c. 90-110 CE 15
1.4 The other Gospels
In addition to the 4 canonical, there were other Gospels known and believed to be reliable by different Christian sects:
• The “Gospel of the Hebrews” – seems to be the name of one or two books16 coming from an alternative Jewish source. It is said to pertain to the Ebionites; an Essenic17 Jewish sect18 that believed in Yeshua’s Messiaship mostly by oral transmission, and didn’t use any ‘Christian’ book other than the “Gospel of the Ebionites” – which some believe is an alternative form of Matthew.19 It is also said to have been used by Egyptian Jews until the 4th Century. Citations and references remain, but the book is completely lost in our days.20
• The “Gospel of Thomas” is a book of mystical sayings meant for an inner circle, according to most scholars, containing sayings that predate the other gospels, originally in Aramaic and then translated into Greek and Coptic (where Gnostic material was probably added into the text). Despite the popular label of ‘Gnostic book’, scholars agree that it’s not Gnostic and that it predates Christian-Gnosticism. 21 I nevertheless understand why is easily confused with Gnostic literature, it is because of its traces of an early Hassidic Judaism.22
•The are more than 50 books that have been catalogued as “Gnostic Gospels”, many of them from an early date (c. 140-200 CE). It is mostly agreed among scholars that this literature was written by Hellenic and/or Jewish-influenced Gnostics (although some may have been wrongly labelled). Apparently the authors of the Gnostic doctrine (which can be found in books such as the “Trimorphic Protennoia”) saw in Yeshua their main source of inspiration. These “hidden” books were read in inner circles, even in Christian monasteries, but are not considered part of any mainstream Christianity, as they are based on Yeshua’s secret teachings about attaining spiritual enlightenment (or Messianic consciousness) through meditation in spiritual teachings that at times are too abstract or too mystical for the common people. Among these we can find “Pistis Sophia”, or the gospels of “Philip”, “Judas” or “Truth”.
• The different branches of what later became Catholic Christianism had also a long list of Gospels, such as “the Gospel of James” (145 CE), “the Infancy Gospel of Thomas” (150 CE), “Nativitate Sanctae Mariae” (9th century CE)…. etc all of them written in order to fill the gaps left by the Gospels, especially during Yeshua’s infancy. They are also used to prove the Catholic doctrine of Immaculate Conception but these books are not reliable; they are the Christian equivalent to a Jewish Legend (Aggadah), having little or nothing of historical value.
1.5 the Gospels’ reliability
So, answering the question about the historicity of the Gospels, the historical evidence supports the idea that at least two Gospels – Mark and Matthew – were globally known a few years after being written, and Luke (used by Marcion and Tatian) followed them very closely. These were globally accepted as coming from reliable sources – the tradition of the Master of Galilee was very well known then and the historical gap is not big enough to deny the possibility of first-hand witnesses. Before these we have earlier sources confirming the information; namely, the letters of Paul (cf. 1Co 15:3-9, 11-12), the letters of the Disciples (cf. 1P 2:23-24), and probably the Gospel of Thomas. In addition, the community of believers wrote for the gentiles a rulebook known as the Didache (c. 70 CE). The Gospel of John came later, and in the second Century was believed to be part of
the authoritative Gospels by both the fathers of the Church (from whom Christian Orthodoxy would come) and the Gnostics. However, there were communities that rejected the books attributed to John; their opponents called them ‘Alogi’ or alogians (cf. Panarion books I & II).
All scholars agree that the Gospels are compilations of oral traditions. People around the Middle East were talking about the Nazarene and passing the information and stories from mouth to mouth, some of which might have been written down, giving rise to proto-Gospels: this is what scholars call the “Q source” (an inexistent proto-Gospel that theoretically Luke and Matthew might have used as a source). But the origin of all the sources is the oral transmission and that’s evident.
Why the Gospels (until then only known in oral form) required to be written down 30-50 years after the actual events? This was a time when riots and insurrections led to the destruction of Jerusalem. This was one of those time periods where all sects of Judaism did the exact same thing: writing down their oral traditions for the fear of losing them in the exile.23 The Talmudist Yosef Klausner says about the Gospels: “We are not to look them for naked, unadorned history: they are compilations, religious in their nature, seeking to portrait the messianic character of Yeshua” (Yeshua miNaztaret pg. 81). So considering that the Gospels are not history books, the critical information they serve is solid: In the first Century people knew a Jewish Rabbi called Yeshua who taught very deep teachings by which he made a good number of followers, performed wonders, died hanged on a tree by the Romans and rose from the dead. Paul even says that if this didn’t happen “then our preaching is vain” (1Co 15:14) because in his days there were eyewitnesses of such events to whom he knew personally; one of them Yeshua’s brother himself (cf. Gal 1:19; 1Co 15:6).
• First Century references to Yeshua are also found in the historians Tacitus (Annals 15:44)24 and Josephus (Antiquities 20:9.1),25 and critical (even atheist) scholars almost universally agree that at least the baptism, the issue at the Temple, and the crucifixion are historical events.26
• The above is a nuisance to those who claim that Yeshua never existed based on what they call “lack of evidences”.27 Actually there’s more evidence of his existence than of any other religious leader of the past. Because apart from traditions and faith, what physical proofs do we have that Abraham, Moses, Buddha, Lao-Zi or many others existed? Even in the case of King David, until a few decades ago we had no evidence of his existence, and then an archaeological artifact was discovered with the supposed inscription: “Beit David”. Not having enough evidence for an irrefutable proof has never been a reason to reject ancient historical figures, how much more so when Yeshua is directly mentioned in earlier sources and the Gospels are quite closer to his time than the writings of other religious figures?
The scholar and historian Michael Grant says:
“If we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject
Jesus’ existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned” (Grant: Jesus; an historian’s review pp. 199-200).
• I’d go further and say that denying the existence of Yeshua is denying our very Jewish tradition. The Talmud mentions that Eliezer ben Hurcanos was pleased with the words that a Nazarene taught him as coming from Yeshua’s mouth (cf. Avoda Zara 17a; Qohelet Rabbah on 1:8), and the Midrashim regard Shimon Keifa 28 and Yaakov the Just (Yeshua’s brother) as tzaddiqim.29 In fact according to a Jewish tradition it was Shimon Keifa who composed the ‘Nishmat’ and one of the ‘Yom Kippur’ prayers (cf. Rabbeinu Tam; Mahzor Vitri p. 285; see also Epiphanius “Anacephalaiosis” 15:1).
1.6 the Textual Variations
Concerning the accuracy of transmission and the preservation of the original texts:
• There are differences between the more than 20,000 30 manuscripts found, which is understandable considering the work involved in the copy of manuscripts. When a book was sent to a new region, it was copied there, again and again by scribes – who sometimes committed errors, or wrote on the margins, or corrected parts of the text that didn’t need to be corrected. Thank God, we have so many manuscripts that the variations are traceable. Almost all changes have to do with grammar, punctuation, spelling and local expressions. There are few instances though where the variations involve a theological agenda and pretend to support spurious theology – this explains why there are so many later interpolations as well – in these cases one requires a scholarly search and critical analysis. Notwithstanding, based on the old manuscripts, the translations and the quotes of the early theologians, one can say that the text has been fairly preserved.
• Based on the above, the three major textual families among the Greek manuscripts are the Alexandrian31, the Western32 and the Byzantine.33 In addition to these there’s the Eastern tradition recorded in Aramaic material, such as the Aramaic Peshitta (435 C.E).34 Almost every fragment found35 can be catalogued as corresponding to one of these traditions.36 • The so called Old Syriac Gospels (syrcur & syrs), approximately dated back to the 4th Century CE, are Aramaic manuscripts that seem to follow an earlier reading. These manuscripts lack several of the spurious interpolations, such as the last 12 verses of Mark, the reconciliation between Herod and Pilate in Luke (Lk 23:10-12) and the story of the adulteress in John (Jn 7:53- 8:11), and contain alternative readings in some verses. This is a very important material for a critical analysis.37
We don’t really know the story behind the Old Syriac. Some suggest they reflect the original Gospels or the ones quoted by Hegessipus in the 2nd century, others say it’s a (mis)translation and others say they were created and used by some heretic sect. The only thing we know for sure is that Divine Providence wanted the Gospels to reach us in their current form.
1.7 My textual preference
• Why do my colleagues and I prefer the Peshitta if I’m not a Peshitta primacist? (a) Because the Gospels are Jewish literature. The Talmud, Targumim, Midrashim,
Zohar… are all written in Hebrew and Aramaic. Why shouldn’t we follow the Syrian instead of the Roman tradition?38 After all, we have seen (in point 1.6) that there’s no
Divine Inspiration whatsoever in the arrangement of the Greek words. (b) Because Divine Providence has smiled on the Peshitta’s face in that it has remained
unchanged for more than 15 hundred years39 (unlike the Greek). (c) Because the Peshitta solves many instances where Greek manuscripts differ.
Let’s see together an example:
■ In Mark 1:41, majority sources say that Yeshua was: “moved with compassion40”; however, the Codex Bezae and a couple Latin translations read that he “was moved with anger41”. The dilemma of the scholars is obvious: If the original reading is ‘moved with compassion’ why in the world would any scribe want to change it to be ‘moved with anger’? Compassion and anger are antonyms, sound completely different, and there’s no theological reason for the change! 42 According to scholars 43 the Syriac word for “having compassion” (Ethrakham 44 (אֵתרַחַם can be easily confused with the word for ‘getting angry’ (Ethra’am 45 .(אתרעם) And these are a few other examples:
■ Mt 6:1, “your alms” or “your righteousness”? Greek manuscripts differ,46 some say ‘alms’ some say ‘righteousness’. The Peshitta uses ‘b’Zidqatkhon’ בזדקתכון from the root ‘zedeq’ .זדק Zedqata זדקתא is the equivalent to the Hebrew Tzedaqah ( צדקה ). This word evolved from specifically meaning ‘righteousness’ to meaning ‘charity’, so it can mean both.
■ Lk 7:35 [cf. Mt 11:19], is it “her sons” or “her works”? Again Greek versions differ. In Luke, the Peshitta uses ‘Bneiah’ בניה which can mean both. How so? Well, the last letter ( ה) turns the word into a possessive; so if one reads the word literally as בני (plural of בר ) we got: “her children” but if we read it as coming from the root בנא (to build, to work on something) we could read: “her works”.47
■ Lk 7:45, is it “since I came in” or “since she came in”? The Peshitta uses ‘d’Elat’ דעלת which can be read both ways (see for instance ‘Elat’ in Acts 5:7).
■ Jn 11:31, is it “they were thinking” or “they were saying”? The Peshitta uses ‘sebaro’ סברו which means ‘they assumed’, thus harmonizing both ideas. The Peshitta harmonizes many discrepancies between the Greek manuscripts; it leads one to think that there’s an Aramaic original source underlying the different versions. Of course the Peshitta primacists think this is an evidence that the Peshitta is the original text of the New Testament, but I disagree. In my opinion the Peshitta is the result of having altered an original Aramaic text in order to harmonize it with the Greek Byzantine texts of the 4th century. 48
1 In Samuel, Gospels are told when an enemy of the king died (cf. 2S 18 & 4:10). In Isaiah the Gospel is
Israel’s redemption from the exile and a global knowledge of God (cf. 40, 41, 52:7). In our case, the
principal source comes from Isaiah 61:1, where it is written that “the Lord anointed me ( משח i.e. has
made me Messiah משיח ) to give good tidings to the meek…freedom for the captives, etc” which Yeshua
applies to himself in his first public shiur (Lk 4:18). This annunciation includes the message of Repentance
(Mark 1:15) which is determinant for hastening the Redemption: “If they are worthy I will hasten it, if not,
at the due time” (cf. Sanh 98a on Is 60:22).
2 cf. Pelikan, Jaroslav (2005). Whose Bible Is It?.
3 cf. Gamble, Harry Y, “18”, The Canon Debate, p. 300, note 21.
4 Most scholars agree that at least 7 of the 13 Pauline epistles are unquestionably authentic (cf. Pheme
Perkins, “Reading the New Tetament” pp. 4-7).
5 Socrates, “Church History” 1:9.30; Athanasius, “Defense of the Nicene Definition” 39. cf. Pagels, “beyond belief:
the secret Gospel of Thomas”.
6 Rambam (in Hilkhot Melakhim uMilkhamot 11:4) offers this same perspective concerning Christianity and
Islam; with all their errors and mistaken theologies, they are – he says – “part of God’s plan to fill the
entire world with the mention of Messiah, Torah, and mitzvot”.
7 Tertullian, “De praescript.” 38; cf. Ireneaus, “Adversus Haereses 3:12” [3:10.27:2-4].
8 Whether the Pauline epistles we have today were manipulated by Marcion or not is still a subject of
debate among the scholars. Many say yes.
9 Adversus Haereses 3:11:8.
10 ibid 3:1; cf. Ecclesiastical History 3:39:15-16.
11 cf. Norelli, Enrico (2005). Papia di Hierapolis, Esposizione degli Oracoli del Signore: I frammenti. pp. 38–54.
12 cf. Eusebious: Eccl. Hist. III 39 cf. Adv. Haer. 5:33:4.
13 See Eusebious (Eccl. Hist. 6:14:6-7) where it is stated that the community requested of Mark to
transcribe the sayings of Peter, although Peter himself felt indifferent about it.
14 cf. Stephen Harris: Understanding the Bible. Some scholars even accept dates earlier than these, dating
Mark as early as the year 55 CE and Matthew the 60 CE; thus alleging to precede the destruction of the
Temple (cf. Michael Grant: Jesus: an historian’s review, pp. 183-189).
15 Some fragments of John predate the Diatessaron (e.g. Papyrus Rylands 457).
16 The fathers of the Church sometimes confuse one sect with another so this name probably refers to
more than one book.
17 cf. Hans-Joachim Schoeps; Jewish Christianity: factional disputes in the early church.
18 cf. Adversus Haereses 1:26, 2:21.
19 cf. Epiphanius Pan. Haed. 28:5:1 about the Gospel of Cerinthus.
20 According to Eusebious it was “the especial delight of those of the Hebrews who have accepted Christ”
(Ecclesiastical History 3:25:5).
21 cf. Layton, Bentley, The Gnostic Scriptures, 1987, p.361. Davies, Stevan L, The Gospel of Thomas and Christian
Wisdom, 1983, pp. 23–24. Some sentences in the Stromata of Clement of Alexandria are apparently
paraphrasing Thomas.
22 Scholars such as Gershom Scholem postulate that the early origins of Gnosticism were highly
influenced not only by Neo-Platonism but mostly by a form of proto-Gnostic Judaism known as the
secrets of Heikhalot – today known as Kabbalah (cf. Scholem, Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah mysticism, and
the Talmudic tradition; cf. Moshe Idel, Kabbalah: New Perspectives p.31)
23 The Mishna, the Jerusalem Talmud, Agadot, the texts of the Essenes, Maasei Merkava literature, Sefer
Yetzirah, the Bahir, etc… all began to be written down in times where all that knowledge could be lost;
either after the death of Alexander the Great (323 BCE), during the wars for the division of Israel (198
BCE to 63 BCE), after the destruction of Israel (70 CE), or after the final Roman exile (136 CE onward).
24 Few scholars suggested that the reference is spurious, but the overwhelming majority dismissed the
idea and treat it as an authentic reference to Yeshua (cf. Craig A. Evans, “Jesus and his contemporaries” p. 42;
Helen K. Bond, “Pontius Pilate in history and interpretation” p. xi; Robert E Van Voorst “Jesus outside the New
Testament” pp. 39-53).
25 “Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, a teacher. He drew over to him both many of the
Jews and many of the Gentiles. Pilate had condemned him to the cross, but those that loved him at the
first did not forsake him. They informed that he had appeared to them and was alive, and that he was
possibly the Messiah about whom our prophets spoke wonders” (Josephus, Antiquities 18:3, as per Agapios
“Kitab al-unwan”). Greek manuscripts seem to include Christian additions that are not found in the Arab
version. Nevertheless, most of scholars consider Yeshua’s reference as absolutely authentic (cf. John
Drane, “introducing New Testament” p. 138; Dr. James H. Charlesworth, “Jesus within Judaism” p. 96).
Josephus also mentions Yaqov, Yeshua’s brother, two chapters later (Antiquities 20:9.1).
26 cf. Mark Allan Power “Jesus as a figure in history” pp. 168-173; Crossan “Jesus; a revolutionary biography” p.
145; Van Voorst “Jesus Outside the New Testament”, p. 16.
27 Conspiracy theorists, anti-missionary mythicists…etc mostly relying on the work of a Protestant
theologian known as Rudolf Karl Bultmann (a work that has been refuted by many other scholars). They
put their efforts in trying to disprove each and every evidence of a historical Yeshua; something they
never do with any other historic figure.
28 Shimon Keifa; also known as Peter in the Western World.
29 cf. Otzar haMidrashim al Nakh. cf. Rav Yehuda haHassid “sefer Hassidim” 191, p. 85.
30 “A study of 150 Greek manuscripts of Luke has revealed more than 30,000 different readings… It is
safe to say that there is not one sentence in the New Testament in which the manuscript is wholly
uniform” (M. M Parvis, vol 4, pp. 594-595 – Interpreter’s dictionary of the Bible).
31 The Alexandrian is believed to reflect earlier readings. The most representative of this family are the
Bodmer Papyri (c. 200), the Codex Vaticanus (c. 300) and the Codex Sinaiticus (c. 330).
32 In the Western the text is enlarged and paraphrased, and in specific places way shorter than the
Alexandrian. The Codex Bezae (c. 400) is the most representative.
33 Byzantine texts are later critical copies of older manuscripts. The codex Alexandrinus (c. 400) and the
codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (c. 420) are the most representative. In general, Byzantine readings represent
the Catholic traditional preference.
34 The Peshitta agrees with the Textus Receptus 108 times, with the Codex Vaticanus 65 times and in 137
occasions it contradicts both, agreeing with alternative readings such as the Old Syriac and 31 times with
a seemingly unique reading (cf. Bruce M. Metzger).
35 Every fragment; including Latin, Arabic and Coptic translations. There are cases where the fragments
reflect a combination of more than one tradition.
36 At the end of the 4th Century (382 C.E), Jerome of Stridon was commanded to translate the Bible into
Latin. This (the Vulgate) became the official Bible of the Catholic Church (cf. Council of trent, 1545-63).
Meanwhile, they worked on a critical reconstruction of the Greek text, known as the Textus Receptus
(1512 CE onward), which was used (together with the Vulgate) to translate the Bibles into English, German,
Spanish… etc. there are some that make the absurd claim that this is an Inspired text, while scholars say
is a botched job.
37 See for instance the interesting reading in the Syriac Sinaiticus of Matthew chapter 1.
38 Eastern Community “believe according to their traditions that the Peshitta (Aramaic Canon of the New
Testament) is the original text” (cf. Mar Eshai Shimun XXIII). Eusebious seems to hint to this when he said
that “Hegesippus [an Eastern Nazarene] quoted the gospel according to the Hebrews and from the
Syriac [Aramaic N”T] and from the [Jewish] oral tradition” (Eusebious, 160 C.E., hist. Eccles. IV 22:8).
39 Thomas of Harqel (616 C.E) translated into Aramaic the books that are not part of the Eastern cannon
(2Peter, 2-3 John, Jude & Revelation); but the Harqlean Version didn’t actually replace the Peshitta.
40 Splagchnistheis; σπλαγχνισθεὶς.
41 Orgistheis; οργισθεις.
42 The change is so absurd that some scholars offer homiletic explanations to support the belief that the
Codex Bezae had the original reading, but this opinion hangs by a thread.
43 cf. Bruce Metzger: “A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament”, 2nd edition p. 56 [77].
44 In Syriac characters: ܡܚܪܬܐ from the Heb. root רחם ; compassion, pity or bowels.
45 In Syriac characters: ܡܥܪܬܐ from the Ar. noun: רועמא ; indignation, disagreement or righteous anger.
46 Δικαιοσυνην (justice) [e.g. in א] and ελεημοσυνην (alms) [e.g. in C (04)].
47 I’d be inclined to read it as ‘her children’ but the intended meaning is “her works”, as Matthew
corroborates using unmistakably ‘avodeiah’ עבדיה i.e. ‘her works’ (Mt 11:19).
48 It’s because of this that when I say we prefer the Peshitta over the Greek, I don’t mean at all that we
have it canonized as the original and perfect text, but rather that we find it very valuable in matters of
critical study and in the reconstruction of that possible original Aramaic text together with the Hebrew
thought that clearly underlies in it.