Introduction
Christology is a field of study in Christian theology that entails the study of the nature of Jesus Christ (Dowley & Briggs 1996). Although Jesus Christ lived one life, the writers of the “good news” or the “gospels” (McGrath 2006) chose to report the events in perspectives that are not entirely similar. For instance, the Gospel according to Matthew commences with a description of the genealogy of Jesus, whereas the Gospel according to Mark begins with a fulfilment of Jesus’ birth as it was prophesied in the Old Testament, and his baptism.
It is evident that the writers of the gospels had different perspectives in relation to the events performed by Jesus and therefore reported them in a manner such as to suit the perspectives. This is an illustration of the different theologies in relation to Christology. According to Wilson (1999), Christology is the assessment of Jesus in respect to who he was and the part he played in the Godly plan. Thus, the writers of the gospels assessed Jesus differently and reported the events of his ministry slightly differently.
There are also different interpretations of the Gospels by readers. Different researchers appraise the Gospels differently by interpreting the verses and making comparisons in line with different points of view. This is what is referred to as redaction criticism. Nevertheless, there is still more debate on interpretation of the Gospels (Houlden, 1995).
This paper looks into the various theologies of the Gospel writers and redaction criticism of the books according to various scholars in theology.
The Theologies
It is undisputable that the writers of the four Gospels had a humanity perspective of Jesus. Each of the Gospels has a description of Jesus as a human being in different ways. For instance, Matthew describes Jesus as an offspring of the genealogy of Abraham (Smart 1989). Thus, this book describes Jesus as a “son of David” and a “son of Abraham” (Smart 1989). Whilst the writer of the Gospel of Matthew gives a detailed account of Jesus genealogy, the book also describes him as a new lawgiver, a great teacher (much like Moses of the Old Testament), “Emmanuel” and King of the Jews (Smart 1989). Therefore, there is no doubt that that the writer of the Gospel according to Matthew revered the humanity aspect of Jesus.
According the Easton Illustrated Dictionary, the Gospel according to Matthew is full of citations to passages of the Old Testament in which Jesus is greatly predicted and foreshadowed. True, the books of Genesis, Isaiah and many more have predictions of the life of Jesus (Smart 1989). Hence, the writer of the gospel according to Matthew would have intended to show a detailed fulfilment of the many predictions about the birth and life of Jesus in the Old Testament. Indeed, the Gospel according to Matthew has more than sixty-five references to the Old Testament, forty-three of which are direct verbal citations (Stanton 2004). These numbers are the greatest in comparison to the other three gospels, thus making the Gospel according to Matthew unique. The writer of Matthew further depicts the “humanity” of Jesus by using the word “church” (Matthew 16:18 and 18:17). This is the only book that contains the word “church” (Stanton 2004).
The gospels of Mark, Luke and John depict both the deity and humanity of Jesus. For instance, in Mark, Jesus is the Messiah and Son of God, in Luke he is a great prophet and the Lord of all nations, whereas in John, Jesus is the “divine word made flesh” (Smart 1989). The writers’ theologies were therefore based on the fact that Jesus lived both as a spirit and as a human form. In fact, the writer of the Gospel according to John began the story in manner that makes a reader believe that indeed Jesus is the light of the world and that his birth was the good news to the world (Smart, 1989).
The Gospels and Redaction Criticism
The phrase redaction criticism was coined by W. Marxen to imply a situation whereby a researcher finds out how a writer or an editor expresses his or her theological perspective by means of the collection and editing of pre-existing traditional material (McGrath 2006). The gospels, as seen from the discussion above can be interpreted in many ways based on the events and the reader. According to Marxen, three settings in life have to be considered when interpreting the gospels. Thus, one must distinguish the first setting in the traditional life of Jesus from the second setting, which refers to the use in which the early tradition was put, and the third setting, which involves the situation of the writer of the gospel at the time of doing the writing (McGrath, 2006).
The principles of redaction criticism are used in respect to the writers of Gospels in several ways. To begin with, the redaction critic must determine the traditions from the sources chosen to be included and excluded (McGrath 2006). For instance, it might be for theological reasons that one author of say, the book of Luke, omits an event that is recorded in the book of John. In the same way, if the book of Mark has a description of events similar to that in the book of Matthew, this is also for theological reason (McGrath 2006).
The writers’ arrangement of materials in their texts, the significance of the material and change in wording are also based on theological perspective depending on how each writer viewed Jesus Christ. Moreover, the writers gave different chronological accounts of the happenings during Jesus’ time. This is aimed at presenting the different theological perspectives.
Examples of Redaction Criticism
Redaction Criticism of the Gospels according to Matthew and Luke
In the books of Matthew and Luke, the least problematic application of redaction criticism is possible because of there is a major source of materials for both books from the book of Mark (Luomanen 1998). In this respect, it is easy to distinguish between tradition and redaction. With particular reference to “The Stilling of the storm in Mark 4: 35-41 and Matthew 8:23-27 give an account of how Jesus was awoken by his disciples to quell a storm that threatened to capsize the boat in which they were travelling. G. Bornkamm examines the redaction in Matthew by asserting that Matthew has not simply borrowed information from Mark, but rather, he has infused it with knowledge on the same material not found in Luke or Mark (Luomanen, 1998).
Luke 13:31-35 sheds light on a salvation-historical perspective, for the three phases of salvation history are contained in this excerpt: prophets, the birth of Jesus and his eventual resurrection, and Jesus’ Parousia (“Easton’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary”). The most probable reason why Luke derives a tripartite-historical perspective was the hold-up of the Parousia and its harmful effect upon the world’s perception of the church. According to Bornkamm, the Gospel according to Mark highlights the preposition that there would be a short, theologically immaterial interval between resurrection and Parousia; when the Parousia does not occur (“Easton’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary”). In this perspective, Luke confers a modification to the theology of the early church, so that the era of the church, equivalent to the Kingdom of God, becomes an unending and indeterminate interval of time (“Easton’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary”).
Redaction Criticism of the gospel according to Mark
Redaction Criticism on the Gospel of Mark is noticeably more difficult than Redaction Criticism on the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. This is because it is almost impossible to distinguish between tradition and redaction in Mark, since Mark’s sources of information (oral or written) are no longer available in their original form before the Mark period (Bockmuehl 2002). The story of John the Baptist (Mark 1: 4-8) gives concepts that are Christological. For instance Bornkamm argues that John the Baptist has no significance himself, but rather, is only a clearance for the coming of Jesus (Bockmuehl, 2002).
Redaction Criticism of the gospel according John
The Gospel of John has been the object of redaction-critical investigation, as the synoptic gospels have. This is because redactional work on John falls short of sufficient knowledge of the information sources used by the author of the Gospel of according to John and lack of viable knowledge of the sociological circumstances in which the author wrote (Bockmuehl 2002).
Conclusion
The theologies of the Gospel writers were based upon deity and humanity. While Matthew dwelt much on the deity aspect of Jesus, the other Gospels gave clear gave clear pictures of deity and humanity of Jesus. The writers of Matthew, Luke and Mark based their works on the events witnessed but as well borrowed and modified some ideas from other Gospels. Redactional criticism of the Gospel of John is faced with difficulties since it is difficult to trace back the circumstances under which the writer wrote.
Bibliography
- Bockmuehl, M. (Ed.) 2002, Companion to Jesus, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
- Bokentotter, B 2005, Concise History of the Catholic Church, Doubleday, London
- Cohn- Sherbok, L 1997, Who’s Who in Christianity, Routledge, London
- Dowley, T & Briggs J H Y 1996, The History of Christianity: a Lion handbook, Lion publications, London Easton’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary.
- Houlden, L (Ed.) 1995, Companion Encyclopedia of Theology, Routledge, London:
- Luomanen, P 1998, Entering the Kingdom of Heaven: A Study on the Structure of Matthew’s View of Salvation, Mohr Siebeck, New York
- McGrath, A 1993, The Blackwell Encyclopedia of modern Christian thought, Blackwell Oxford
- McGrath, A E 2006, Christian Theology: An Introduction, Blackwell Publishing, London
- Morrill, B T (Ed.) 2006, Practicing Catholic: Ritual, Body, and Contestation in Catholic Faith, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke
- Newman, S 2005, The Real History behind the Da Vinci Code, Berkley Books, London
- O’Gorman, R T 2000, Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Catholicism, Alpha Books, Indianapolis
- Reddie, A (Ed.) 2006, Black Theology in Transatlantic Dialogue, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke
- Rogerson, J W (Ed.) 2006, Oxford Handbook of Biblical Studies Oxford, University Press
- Sawyer, D 1996, Women and Religion in the First Christian Centuries, Routledge, London
- Smart, N 1989, The World’s Religions. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge
- Stanton, G N 2004 Companion to Jesus, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge:
- Wainwright, G 2000, Is the Reformation Over?: Catholics & Protestants at the Turn of the Millennia, University Press Marquette, Marquette
- Wilson, B 1999, Christianity, Routledge, London