Thesis

                                                                      THESIS NO.8

            The Gospels are not eye-witness reports of what Jesus did and said, but are collections of traditions about him,  written from the perspective of the Resurrection in response to the respective needs of the community (ND 241-244).  Though the Synoptic Gospels have much in common they differ from one another in their presentation of Jesus Christ.  However, the Johannine perspective is significantly different form them.  In their various kerygmata the Gospels provide us with a basis for diversity in unity.  This could serve as model for Christians living in a multi-religious context like India.

PART ONE

The Gospels are not eye-witness reports of what Jesus did and said, but are collections of traditions about him, written from the perspective of the Resurrection in response to the respective needs of the community (ND 241-244).

Background - Why and When of this problem???

             Renaissance (born again) try to apply Greek philosophical and scientific thinking to scripture from 14 to 16th century. Then the age of Enlightenment the Gospel were considered as the eye-witness documents and the biography of Jesus.  But the intellectual revolution in 15 - 17th century marked a transition from a tradition oriented society characterized by an unquestioning acceptance of traditional authority to a reason oriented society which accepts nothing that has not been demonstrated and tested by observation and experience.  This gave rise to a radically new modern attitude.  Today the critical study of the gospels (Text criticism, Historical criticism, Form criticism, Redaction criticism, Literary criticism) has thrown considerable doubt on traditional ideas, about their nature and origin.  Hence, the church and the scholars agree that, the gospels are collections (mosaics) of isolated stories about Jesus' words, deeds, sufferings, death and resurrection.  They are interpretations of these events.  So they are neither eye witness-reports nor biographical treatises of Jesus Christ.  The Gospels are documents written from faith to faith; they are history interpreted through faith.  Gospels are not biographical treatises of the historical Jesus but as proclamations of risen Christ.  It is a collection of originally isolated stories about and sayings of Jesus, together in a theologically meaningful pattern.  Thus, Gospels are anecdotal rather than biographical.  Gospels are not memoirs but mosaics theologically shaped compilations of traditions about Jesus intend to give the inner meaning of Christ event.

(The Church affirms that they are not eyewitness reports in Sancta Mater Ecclesia (1964 Paul VI, ND 241-245).

The Three Stages in the Handing Down of the Gospel Tradition and the Factors Influenced the Formation of the Oral Tradition

1. Jesus-Event:  Historical Jesus (Up to 30 CE): Basically it is the words and works of Jesus.  It is witnessed by the apostolic community, but they did not write a historical report of it.

            What is important for us is what Jesus said, not how he said it.  We learn that the evangelists did not hesitate to change the words in which the exact meaning would emerge in a more powerful way, according to the situation of their audience.

2. Oral Tradition (Up to 70 CE):  After the death and resurrection of Jesus the words and works of Jesus were remembered and handed down in the light of the experience they had of the Risen Lord.  These are interpreted and formulated in the form of anecdotes sayings and cluster of traditions, responding to the needs of the community.

            This handing down of the same were influenced by the following three factors: (a)  In the light of resurrection: The experience of the Risen Lord changes the whole attitude of the disciples towards Jesus. (b) In functional form: The handing down was shaped by the needs of the believing community and they did it in the functional situations (in the teaching, preaching and the worship of the church). (c) In the language of the O.T: This is the only theological vocabulary the earliest church possessed and so the handing down of the stories and sayings of Jesus was done in the language of the O.T. e.g., allusion and typology. Mk. 1/16-20 - 1Kg 19/19-21.

3.  Written Gospels (Up to 70 - 100 CE): Work of the second and the third generations communities after the death and the resurrection of Jesus.  Each evangelist arranged it according to their own understanding of Jesus (theology) influenced by that community to whom they were writing. eg.  Parable of the lost sheep in Mt.18/10-14 and Lk. 15/1-7.

            Hence, we see that the gospels are not historical documents but are crystallization of a tradition that was both fragmentary (handed down in isolated unit) and dynamics (continually developed as the needs and theological perspectives). They are also selections and editions, compilations and interpretations of the event of Jesus in order to evoke a faith response form the listener.  The gospels are written to proclaim a message, rooted in history but going beyond it.  It is the proclamation of a faith experience, which can be conceived only in faith.

DO GOSPELS DIFFER ONE FROM ANOTHER IN THEIR PRESENTATION?: The stories about and sayings of Jesus circulating in the early church is set, functional forms are gathered together by the evangelists.  These are skilful compilations.  Each evangelist, by selecting his material, arranging it in a particular way and even where necessary, by touching it up, interprets his tradition and imposes a pattern upon it.  His Gospel is an edited compilation reflecting a particular point of view.  It expresses a special understanding of Jesus.  It has its own theology.

            Mark is thus a Gospel of "Secret epiphanies" proclaiming the words and works of Jesus as hidden manifestations of `son of God'.

            Matthew is an ecclesial Gospel which defines the church as the true Israel (in place of Judaism), whose members are `disciples' of the ever present risen Lord, walking along the way of righteousness that Jesus himself (in the five great discourses of the gospel) has taught.

            Luke is a theology of salvation history, in which the ministry of Jesus is presented as the time of salvation, a sort of `middle period' which gives meaning to both the O.T time of preparation which proceeds, and the church's time of mission which follows.

            In the Gospel of John, he tries to show that the believer is brought stage by stage to the full self-revelation of Jesus.  Gradual and progressive revelation of Jesus and acceptance of faith in him.

            Sometimes the time and place indications of the gospels are contradictory. eg., Jesus mission in Jerusalem: Synoptic only once, Jn more than once.  Sometimes the order of the events also differ from gospels to gospels:  Often the order is theological.  e.g., Lk: rejection of Jesus is placed not at the end of the Galilean ministry (as Mk 6/1-6 = Mt 13//53-58) but at the beginning.

Matthew: Diverges from the common order but the purpose is to put the 10 miracles together soon after the sermon on the mount--i.e. Jesus as Messiah of words and deeds.

            We treat gospels as historical documents which put as in touch with the Jesus of history.  What we have learned about the nature of the gospels (mosaics not memoirs) and about the process of their formation (Jesus-oral tradition-written gospels) must guide us in our attempt to establish their historical reliability.  We have to evaluate the historical worth of gospels.  So we must begin with the written gospels as we have them now, and work its way back through the oral tradition to the historical Jesus, using the various critical techniques that have been developed to study the Gospel tradition at each of its stages.

            Thus the four gospels are different, so we must study each one for itself.  The evangelists tell us who Jesus was, how they gradually discovered his mystery, what changed their lives etc.  They are like mosaics, giving us different pictures of same Jesus according to under-standing of their own communities where the evangelists lived.  If we compare and read them in a synopsis, we get a better understanding of the details and the nuances peculiar to each of them.

PART II

Though the Synoptic Gospels have much in common they differ from one another in their presentation of Jesus Christ

            Gospels: The stories about and sayings of Jesus circulating in the early church is set, functional forms were gathered together by the evangelists.  These are skilful compilations.  Each evangelist, by selecting his material, arranging it in a particular way and even where necessary, by touching it up, interprets his tradition and imposes a pattern upon it.  His Gospel is an edited compilation reflecting a particular point of view.  It expresses a special understanding of Jesus. It has its own theology.

MARCAN PRESENTATION OF JESUS

            Mark's Gospel is addressed to Gentile community.  This is evident from 7/24,15/42, (explains the Jewish customs), 3/17, 4/41, 7/11, 34, 15/22, (translates Aramaic words).  Mark seems to have special interest in persecution and martyrdom. (8/34-38,13/9-13).  This is because the occasion of his Gospel is persecution under Nero.  So Mark may be writing to prepare his readers for this suffering by placing before them the life of our Lord.  There are  many references both explicit and veiled to suffering and discipleship through out the Gospel.  (1/2-3, 3,22-30, 8/34-38, 10/30-33).  So Mark presents Jesus as suffering servant.

            Mark's Gospel is a gospel of secret epiphanies, proclaiming the words and works of Jesus, the hidden manifestations of the suffering son of God.  The idea took its rise from the several instances in which Jesus commands people to be silent about is action or identity.  After Peters' confession (8.27-30) of Jesus as the Messiah, the meaning of the messiahship of Jesus is given namely, the suffering messiah.  So Mark 8/27-30 is the watershed of Mk's Gospel because the main thrust of the first part is the progressive revelation of the Mystery of Jesus's messiahship while the chief thrust of the second part is the mystery of the suffering son of Man. (Mk. 8/27-30).

MATTHEAN PRESENTATION OF JESUS

            Matthew's Gospel is addressed to the Judeo Christians and he presents Jesus as the kingly Messiah, that is the long awaited eschatological saviour of Israel and the world.  He does this primarily by showing how Jesus in his life and ministry fulfilled the O.T scriptures. 1/22-23, 2/15, 2/17-18, 2/24, 8/17,  12/17-21, 13/35,27/9-10.  He is born into the family of David (1/1-23) and realizes his messianic role by fulfilling Old Testament prophecy through his actions and O.T , Law through his teaching (5/17).  But his saving mission reaches beyond Israel to the gentiles (8/5-13).  This gentile mission is justified by Mt's portrayal of the mission of Jesus as one which meets with increasing rejection by the leaders of the Jews.  (21/33.21/13)  And finally by the whole people (27/25).  Because Israel rejects its messiah, Jerusalem is destroyed (22/25) and kingdom is now entrusted to a new people (21-43) made up of Jews and gentiles alike.  It is this new people that makes up the community of the disciples of the risen Lord.

            According to Matthew, Christian existence is discipleship: "Make disciples of all nation" (28/19).  People become disciples through baptism and they as such by observing whatever Jesus had commanded them.  In this way they do the will of the Father in Heaven.(12/50).  By doing the will of the Father, the followers of Jesus show themselves to be the disciples of the Risen Lord, who is for them Immanuel.  Jesus is the Immanuel because He is the Son of the Living God. (16/16) and this is because he can communicate his sonship to his followers (11/27).

            The Church is prefigured in the gospel of Matthew by the inner circle of the 12 disciples of Jesus.  They stand for Mt's church.  Mt. thus operates with a two stage scheme of salvation history.  The time of Jesus with its mission to Israel grounds the time of the church with its universal mission to "All Nations" (28/18-20).  The unifying element which ties these 2 periods together is the Immanuel.  What we have in Mt. then is a Christology of Sonship joined to an Ecclesiology of Discipleship and both held together in a two tier scheme of salvation history which presupposes an eschatology of presence (Immanuel).

LUKAN PRESENTATION OF JESUS:  Lk wants to create an accurate, chronological and comprehensive account of the unique life of Jesus the Christ to strengthen the faith of gentile believers and stimulate saving faith among non believers.  The main features of his theology are as follows:

            Luke narrates the story of Jesus as piece of history.  He traces out the continuity between the ministry of Jesus and the rise of the early church, thus making the story of Jesus as part of the history of the church.  Lk, of course does not mean that the life of Jesus is merely a part of the church history.  Rather it is the central era in the salvation history and central era in God's gracious dealings with men preceded by the history of Israel and inaugurating the period of the Church.

            The key note of the ministry of Jesus is the gospel of salvation.  Two of Lk's favorite words are "preach the Gospel" and "salvation".  The former sums up the whole ministry of Jesus, his teaching, healing etc.  The latter sums up the content of Jesus message, which is contained in 19/10.

THE JOHANNINE PERSPECTIVE OF JESUS IS DIFFERENT FROM SYNOPTICS

            The Fourth Gospel gives as its purpose : `that you may believe that  Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name' (20.31).  We may take this as the evangelist's own concise summary of his gospel.

            It aims to stimulate faith - that is, to bring the unbeliever to faith or to encourage the believer in his faith or both.  Believing here means both accepting the veracity of the claim that `Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God' (believe that - e.g., 6.69; 8.24; 11.27; 16.27;20.31; I John 5.1,5), and commitment to this Jesus (belief into - the predominant and characteristic Johannine usage - e.g., John 1.12;3.16;6.29;11.25f.;17.20;I John 5.10).  Distinctive also of Johannine usage is the extent to which the verb `know' (56 times) has become a near equivalent to `believe'.

The content of faith is that `Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God': 

            We can tell what this meant for John by the way in which he presents Jesus in his Gospel.  Two aspects in particular mark out the distinctiveness of John's kerygma at this point.  First, the extent to which the historical Jesus and the exalted Jesus overlap in the Fourth Gospel - the extent to which  historical Jesus is seen in terms of the exalted Christ.   It is this which almost certainly accounts for the striking differences between the Jesus of the fourth Gospel and the Jesus of the Synoptics.  We also have to look into the following features: of the roll-call of christological titles which confronts us right away in John I - Lamb of God, Messiah, Son of God, King of Israel, Son of Man - whereas in the Synoptics such recognition as Jesus meets with only comes to expression much later in his ministry; of the famous`I am' claims of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel (6:35; 8:12; 10:7,11; 11:25; 14:6; 15:1), which would hardly have been ignored so completely by the Synoptics if they had belonged to the original tradition of Jesus' sayings; and of Jesus's striking self-consciousness particularly of pre-existence which confronts us regularly throughout the Fourth Gospel (e.g.3.13;6.38;58;10.36;17.5,24) and which again must have left some equivalent mark in the Synoptic  tradition had such sayings been part of the historical Jesus' message.  Such differences cannot be reconciled on the strictly historical level.   The best explanation is that John is not attempting to give a historical picture of the man Jesus, but what he sees to be a true picture of the historical Jesus with the glory that was to be his by virtue of his death, resurrection and ascension already visible in his earthly life (1.14; 2.11; 4; 12.23; 13.31;17.5).  Other kerygmata in the NT keep the historical Jesus and exalted Christ much further apart: Acts and Paul seem hardly interested in the historical Jesus; the synoptics, though presenting Jesus in the light of Easter faith, do not let the two pictures merge to anything like the same extent.  John's proclamation of Jesus is therefore quite distinctive - as distinctive as Paul's `last Adam' christology and Hebrews' High Priest christology.

            Second, at the same time John marks a much increased emphasis on the historical actuality of Jesus's earthly life as compared with Paul and Acts.  This no doubt in large part is due to the growing influence and challenge posed by emerging Gnosticism.  The particular form current at the time of John we know as Docetism.  Since Gnostic dualism regarded matter, flesh, the physical as evil, Docetism denied that the divine redeemer could have wholly embraced the physical, become incarnate in matter.  The humanity of Jesus must have been only an appearance, a seeming.  Hence the Johannine writings stress the reality of Jesus' humanity; the fleshness of Jesus is emphasized in a way which has no real comparison in the kerygmata of Acts and Paul (John 1.14;6.51-58;19.34f.;I John 4.1-3; 5.6-89).

            Believing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God,  leads to life.  Here is another important and characteristic theme in John.

            Where the Johannine kerygma becomes distinctive is in the way it presents the promise of life as a sharp `either-or'.  Hearers must choose life or death, and if they choose life they pass at that moment from death to life, leaving death and judgment behind (3.36; 5.24;11.25f.; I John 3.14; 5.12).  Such clear-cut antitheses are typical of John's message -  between light and darkness, sight and blindness, truth and falsehood, Spirit and flesh etc. (1.5;3.6,19-21;6.63;8.12,44f.; 9.39-41).  There is no room here for compromise for an in-between position of indifferent shades.  There is no idea of life as a process, of an already which is only a beginning, of the not-yetness of life in the Spirit which characterizes Paul's message.  In the Johannine circle the distinction between believer and unbeliever is clearcut (I John 2.4,23;3.6,9f.,14f;4.5f).  This is clearly an ethical dualism, the antithesis of decision - the Johannine writer want to pose the challenged of the gospel as sharply and as clearly as possible.  But it does leave us with a rather simplistic view of reality.  It divides humankind into two classes.  Nowhere is this more apparent than in the various `tests of life' which I John offers to its readers  - indwelling Spirit love, right confession, obedience (e.g. 2.4; 3.24; 4.2f.,7).  Evidently the author assumed that those who love are those who make a right confession.   It is not at all evident what the author would make of the person who displays a Christ-like love and who yet refuses to believer in Christ.   The sharp Johannine antithesis provides no answer to the (Christian) `problem' of the good pagan, the loving atheist.

            In the synoptic Gospels, Jesus' ministry is a one-year Galilean ministry; he leaves Galilee to go to Juda and Jerusalem only once, in the final journey that culminates in his death.  John recounts a three-year ministry; three different passover feasts are celebrated in the course of Jesus' ministry (2:13; 6:4; 11:55), as opposed to the one passover celebrated during Jesus' final days in the synoptics.  Moreover, in John, Jesus' ministry alternates between Galilee and Jerusalem.  He makes three tripes from Galilee to Jerusalem in the course of his ministry (2:13; 5:1; 7:10), and, indeed, most of his ministry is concentrated in Judea and Jerusalem.  The chronology of Jesus' trial and crucifixion is also different in John.  All the Gospels that Friday  is the first day of passover and in John it is the Day of preparation for the passover (18:28; 19:14).

            The johannine Jesus uses some short parables and proverbs, but there are no parables that begin, "The kingdom of God is like..." in John.  The centerpiece of Jesus' teaching is the Farewell Discourse and prayer (John 14-17), a speech of unparalleled length compared with any in the other Gospels.  The fact that the Church turned to readings from john to guide it through each of the critical turning points in its liturgical life - the celebration of the birth of Jesus, the preparation for Jesus' death, and the joy of Easter-  highlights another distinctive quality of the Gospel of John.

            The "I am" sayings, the Poetic language of the prologue etc.  By speaking of God as Father and Jesus as Son, John calls attention to the love and familial intimacy between them.

            Some have the problem about the usage of father Son language.  john does not use Father/Son language to reinforce the claims of Patriarchy.  Rather, he uses it to highlight the theological possibilities of intimacy and love that rest at the heart of God.

In their various kerygmata the Gospels provide us with a basis for diversity in unity.  This could serve as a model for Christians living in a multi-religious context like India

            Diversity in unity is a fact to us Indians.  As Christians we have the experience of this phenomenon in our NT.  The NT in its kerygma/kerygmata and it s primitive confessional formulae provides us with certain facts of this diversity in unity.

            Preaching or proclamation is very important in the NT and the Gospels are the expression of this. (We find Jesus proclaiming the Gospel of the kingdom of God).  But the problem is, was there a single normative expression of the Gospel or many in the earliest Christianity. (Kerygma or Kerygmata?)  To find this let us examine different understanding of the kerygma in the NT.

THE KERYGMA OF JESUS

            The synoptic gospels characterize Jesus' public ministry in summary statements as "preaching the gospel of God" (Mk. 1.14-15).  Kingdom of God constitutes the key message of Jesus.  It is a global expression for the sum total of eschatological salvation.  It is a relational and experiential reality.  Therefore Jesus does not define it but explains it through parables, stories etc. that the individuals may experience it personally.   Jesus ushers the kingdom of God in his words and deeds.  His healing and miracles are considered as the eschatological battle with satan who was considered the archenemy of Kingdom of God.

            Jesus looked for two responses from his believers namely, repentance and faith.  The meaning of repentance is clear in the parable of the prodigal son, Jesus' encounter with the rich young man and Zachaeus.  This repentance leads to faith, which is childlike dependence on God.  On the part of God, forgiveness and acceptance is given to those who have faith.  This is embodied in Jess table fellowship with the sinners, the outcast etc.

KERYGMA OF JOHN

            Kerygma of John aims to stimulate faith to bring the unbeliever to faith (Jn 20-21). `Believe' is a key theme in John, and is one thing required of Jesus' hearers.  Faith is not linked with repentance in John.  Unlike other N.T. authors believing means accepting the claim that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God and commitment to this Jesus.  The content of faith according to John is that Jesus is the Christ.

            One of the characteristic feature of John's gospel is that the historical Jesus is seen in terms of the exalted Christ (difference between synoptic and John), for e.g., in John the Christological titles confronts us in the first chapter; Son of God, Messiah, Son of Man,; in the synoptic, however, such titles occur at as later phase of his ministry.   Believing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God leads to life.  And it is a distinctive feature of Johannine kerygma that the promise of life is presented as a sharp either/or.  This theme is presented in antitheses like light and darkness, life and darkness, sight and blindness...(1/5; 3/6,19-21; 6/63 etc.).

            UNITY: We find three core elements of unity in the New Testament kerygma 1. The proclamations of the Risen, exalted Jesus (Resurrection in Acts, Lord in Paul, Historical Jesus in John); 2.  Call for faith, acceptance of the proclamation and commitment to the Jesus proclaimed; 3. the promise held out to the faith (forgiveness, salvation, union between the believer and the exalted Christ).

            DIVERSITY: Besides this unity there is diversity by which is meant difference and disagreement.  For instance, difference about the significance of Jesus' earthly ministry and death, disagreement over the eschatological dimension of gospel and its ethical out working.  The unity between the Easter kerygma and the kerygma of Jesus is difficult since the difference is stark; Jesus proclaimed the kingdom, but the post-easter kerygma proclaimed Jesus; Jesus-proclaimed repentance and faith in view of the kingdom, but the post-easter kerygma proclaimed repentance and faith in Jesus; and Jesus proclaimed God's offer of forgiveness and acceptance and the post-easter kerygma made the same offer but mediated through Christ.    The question that emerge in our mind after reflection the unity and diversity is that `Is there a continuity between Jesus the proclaimer and Jesus the proclaimed'?

            The decisive factor is Easter.  For, the faith of Christians is centered around the post-easter kerygma.  The NT has given us basis for proclaiming the message of Christ according to the needs of the time and culture, yet keeping our faith in Jesus.  Therefore, in a country like India, where there is a multiplicity of culture and language, where there is sense of unity in diversity, NT comes with a base coupled with a strong sense of proclamation flexible according to the time and people responding to the needs of the people and of the place just as the evangelists had their own theology so as to suit to the needs of the community to which they were writing the gospel.

            PRIMITIVE CONFESSIONAL FORMULAE: The reality of unity and diversity is also found in the primitive formulae of the NT.  The earliest forms of the confessional formulae focussed on Jesus, confessing their faith in him.  The chief function of confessional formulae is to show the distinctiveness of the faith expressed in different life situations.  There could be different confessions because the christians who used them were different, and they used them in different circumstances or life settings.  The most obvious life setting is proclamation and the second importance is for worship.  The third is confrontation in the context of apologetic and polemic (Acts 9/22; 17/3; 18/28).

a) Jesus: the Son of Man

            This is the earliest form of expressing faith in Jesus.  It belong to Gospel.  It appears only on jesus' lips.  some say it originated in the post-easter situation.  The son of man tradition underwent a development in th earliest community.  The earliest churches thought of jesus as the Son of Man in a creative way.  There are various views mentioned below.  a. all Son of Man sayings come from the early churches and none go back to Jesus. b.  Some of the Son of Man sayings go back to Jesus more or less in the form preserved in the tradition. c.  Some of the Son of Man sayings go back to non-titular speech idiom of jesus.  Jesus some times used the Aramaic phrase barenasa.  d.  Jesus used for self -designation intentionally in ambiguous manner.

            Thus in conclusion we can say that the son of man sayings was  part of the earliest church's faith.

b)  Jesus: The Messiah (Christ)

            It is a key expression of faith within the early Jewish mission.  Christos usually serves as proper name, a way of referring to Jesus, rather than an expression of faith in Jesus as the messiah.

            With regard to the historicity of this confession in essence it goes back to Jesus' own life-time.  Jesus was put to death as the messianic pretender.  Messiahship is visible through miracles.  On the other hand Jesus did  not seem to have denied a messianic role together.  For early christians it was significant to demonstrate that christ was crucified.  For Jews a crucified messiah was not accepted.  Scriptures were searched  and passages were brought to light to show that messiah must suffer.

c)  Jesus:  The Son of God

            Son of God language has its roots within jesus' own ministry.  It did not have a messianic nuance for two reasons.  1. linking together II Sam 7,14 and Ps 2,7 and interpreting messianically.  2. Evidence from Qumran that `Son of God' was applied to a human being in an apocalyptic setting.  Jewish Hasidim endowed with charismatic powers were called sons of God or holy men of God.  The firmest root is in Jesus' way of addressing God as abba.  Thus Jesus thought of himself as God's son did not have an important role for the earliest jewish christians, it came to full flower within the widening mission of Hellenistic Jewish christianity.

            Matthew's use of Christ/ son of David as well as son of God indicates that it is a bridge document between jewish christianity and hellenistic jewish christianity.  It was also a bridge between jewish and gentile thought; a good or a great man might be called son of God in both societies and also could can note divinity.  Son of God was of considerable significance for gentile christianity.

d)  Jesus: The LORD

            This is certainly the principal confession of faith for Paul and his churches. "Jesus is the Lord" is a central affirmation of Pauline kerygma.  The history of confession of Jesus as Lord depends on what is meant by Lord, Kyrios.  It can denote a whole range of divinity-from a respectful form of address as to a teacher or judge to a full title for God.  In Ps 110,36 the Lord is referred th YHWH.  The confession of `Jesus is the Lord' originated primarily from the post-easter faith of the first christians.  According to Acts 2,36 and Phil 2,9-11 Kyrios is the title given to Jesus at his resurrection/exaltation.  The confession of Jesus as Lord is  at first only an addition to the confession of the one God.  So we have the beginning of a confession on two clauses:  God is one; and Jesus is Lord.

Life-setting of earliest Kerygmata

            1.  The most obvious life-setting is proclamation; 2. Next important one is for worship 3. confrontation in the context of apologetic polemic.

CONCLUSIONS

            1.  The chief function of confession formulae is to show the distinctiveness of the faith expressed.  First of all, it is Jesus who is confessed; it is not the faith of Jesus but the faith in Jesus.  Secondly it is the present status of Jesus that is confessed, not what he was but what he is, Thirdly it is Jesus who is the subject of the confession i.e, the historical person who is so confessed.  The confessions also highlight the distinctiveness of the faith confessed in different situations.  No single confession that is appropriate to all circumstance and all times.  The confessional formulae must be simple. i.e, faith reduced to simple assertions or claims.  We see unity in the fact that the earliest christian's confess the exaltation of the man Jesus and the continuity between Jesus of Nazareth and the one who enabled them to come to God; diversity in the different confessions themselves, in the different life-setting and in the way confessions were interpreted supplemented and changed.

INDIAN SITUATION

            As Indians diversity in unity is basic to us because we have different religions, languages and cultures.  The `ultimate' is expressed in different names and worshipped in different ways, according to different culture.  An individual makes sense of his life by being in a religion and practicing its beliefs.  Unity in diversity in three levels: Intra Church: equality of all 3 rites in India; Intra Church: relationships with other churches, ecumenism and Inter-religious Relation: appreciation and appropriation of other faiths' symbols, traditions.  Our study of NT provide us a basis for diversity in unity.  Unity is that we all proclaim God's saving or liberation act; diversity is that it is done in and through different religions, beliefs and traditions.  As for christians the faith in risen Lord is the unifying factor.  It is proclaimed in different ways.  We must develop an Indian theology with new confessional formulations and titles according to the context of liberation and prophetic role.

------------------------------------------------------------------For General Knowledge:-

                      What a Gospel is?

1.         A collection of traditions of Jesus, to give the significance of Jesus.

2.         Written by anonymous Christians

3.         It gives knowledge of Jesus

4.         It is proclamation, demanding a response.

5.         It gives the religious significance of what goes on in the events of Jesus.

6.         It is a document of written to provoke Jesus' experience in others.

7.         It is a history interpreted through faith, for the people who have faith

            What a gospel is not?

1.         A historical or a scientific work

2.         Written by the eye-witnesses

3.         Not about Jesus.

4.         Not a book of information, which you may/not accept.

5.         Not interested in the external historical events

6.         Not a biography.

7.         Not written for entertainment, not for satisfying one's curiosity.

Canon of the Scriptures

            A` Kanon' in Greek (qaneh) in Hebrew) is a read or measuring stick. When used in connection with the Bible, the word `canon' refers to the collection of books that are acknowledged to be authoritative in the church and by which the church's faith can be measured. The Christian canon of scriptures contains the OT and NT.

a) Canon of the OT.

            The canon of the OT books traditional in Catholicism contains all the books of the Hebrew Bible along with seven more books that were part of the Greek translation known as the Septuagint (and the Latin Vulgate): Tobit, baruch, I Maccabees, II Maccabees, Sirac, and Wisdom of Solomon. Also incided are some additions to Esther and Daniel. The forty six books are divided into four categories: Pentateuch, Historical books, Wisdom writings, and Prophets. Catholics and Protestants usually refer to these books as old testament. The additional books in the Catholic canon are called as `Apocrypha' or deutero-canonical.

b) Canon of the NT

            All christians today share the same canon of twenty-seven NT books. The first section of the NT contains the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, along with the Acts of the Apostles. The thirteen letters of Paul are divide into letters written to the communities(Romans, I Corinthians, II Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, I Thessalonians, II Thessalonians) and letters written to the individuals (I Timothy, Titus, Philemon).  The letter to the Hebrews, which has some connections with the Pauline Corpus, is followed by the Seven catholic or general epistles: James, I Peter. II Peter, I John, II John, III John, and Jude, The Revelation of John concludes the NT canon.

            By the late second century A.D. there was the widespread agreement that the NT canon contained the four gospels, Acts, the thirteen Pauline letters,I Peter, and I John. Athanasius in 367 A.D. designated as canonical the twenty-seven books contained in our NT today. He also gave the name `canon 'to this collection. From the  5th century onwards this same canon was fixed in the west.

            Since the NT, developed over several centuries, it is impossible to be certain about the precise criteria by which books were accepted as canonical. Some factors that may have contributed to the recognition of christian writings as canonical were their traditional use in the churches, their orthodox content, connection with the apostles, relevance to the whole church, and belief in their inspiration.The external or historical factors affecting the canonicity included the natural development of a religious movement towards codification, the threat posed by the Marcion's limited canon , and the  claims by the gnostics and other groups to possess secret revelations in written form.

            (For further readings in this part,please refer, The New Dictionary of Theology, Canon of Scriptures  .... pp 157-159)

2>        If it is so, can we treat them as historical documents which put us in touch with the historical Jesus ?

We cannot reach at a neat and full history of Jesus in the gospels. However, the historical critical study of the gospels(using five criticisms helps us to reach a grain of Jesus's history. Archaeology also helps us in this project. Thus today we have been able to establish that certain events associated with Jesus the greatest probability happened. Eg., Jesus died on the cross, addressed God as `Abba', he was baptized by John the Baptist, he was at loggerheads with the religious leaders of his time etc.

Note: The following material may be useful for your further studies in this regard. If you want read, otherwise skip it.

METHODS USED IN HISTORICAL CRITICAL METHOD CRITICAL METHODS

1. Text Criticism: What is it? its methods?  Why we need it?: Try to establish the authenticity of the gospel that we have. Since the original autographs are long lost and the copying and recopying has allowed many unintentional changes(the omission of letters or words; the addition of letters; the confusion of letters and the confusion of similar sounding words) and intentional changes (harmonizations with parallel passages; incorporation of variant readings; exegetical corrections; dogmatic corrections and interpolations).

            Its methods of text criticism : It uses two criteria: External criteria (the age, the quality and the text type of the witnesses; the number of texts it is  found)and the internal criteria ( a more difficult and simpler reading is preferred to a simpler reading; a reading that confirms to the author's vocabulary and style).

The tools used are Papyrus, leather Scroll, Parchment Codices, Unicials and Minuscules.

2. Literary Criticism: It is the study of any literature as a work of literature. in the biblical criticism however it used in narrower sense. It studies the literary connections between the first three gospels. Because it sands for a technique of the historical critical method which is used to determine:

1. the authenticity of a biblical book - was the book written by the author to whom it is ascribed?

2. its sources - what written documents did the author use to compose it?

3. its literary inter  relationship with other books of the Bible.

Within the NT study LC usually refers to

i.          matters of source analysis,

ii.         questions of the authenticity of the texts, and

iii.        the interrelationship between the NT materials.

The first three gospels are so similar to each other while differing strikingly from the Jn. So. LC of the gospels try to determine the literary relationships between the first three gospels.

The tools used :- Q - the hypothetical source, UR Markus, special label Mt uses `M' and Lk uses `L'.

3. Form Criticism: which studies the history of the oral transmission of the gospel tradition (Bultmann - the father of form criticism). It tries to study the pre-history of the Gospel tradition, not the text as such but the transmission of the tradition. It does the study in the following three forms:

1. Identifies forms - by comparing the Jewish and GK literatures.

2. Traces their history, to find out the earliest copies.

3. Determines the situation (sitz-in-laben) of the text.

            Form criticism is not the same as the `literary genre' which is already written. whereas form criticism studies the oral tradition.

What is a form?  It is a particular style of writing something eg. news report, editorial, the advertisement etc. has special forms and special style.

Tools are - Jewish and Hellenistic literature and synoptic study of the gospels.

4. Redaction criticism: Studies the edition and writing down of the  oral traditions. Establish the theology of the evangelists.

It tries to study the text critically to find out how the text has been redacted from the oral to the written forms. Each evangelist has his own methods of redacting the texts.

            It uses the Vertical (eg. studying MK in terms of the Mk) and the Horizontal (studying one Gospel in comparison of the others ) analysis.

            By this tool we arrive at the theology of the Gospels. The theology of a Gospel is given at the introduction of each Gospel. For MK it is the Gospel of proclamation, For MT, it is the book of origins, and for LK it is a critical and historical narrative of salvation history.

Tools used are: Concordance, Synopsis, Bible Dictionary and Map.

5. Historical criticism:

            It tries to find out the historicity of individual sayings and stories in the Gospels (not the history of the whole as such). It establishes the historicity by working back from the text as we have it now to its most primitive form.

            Tries to reach the Jesus of history. It is the quest for historical Jesus. This quest has four periods:

            a> Pre-quest: Gospels are biographies and hence quest is unnecessary . Jesus of history and Christ of faith is the same. Meimorus is the one who spoke of difference between Jesus of history and Christ of faith.

           

            b> Old-quest: Gospels are biographies and legends. Quest is possible. To meet the Jesus of history remove the legends and meet the Christ of faith. Schweitzer made a study not on Jesus of history but on the historians  Jesus.

            c> No-quest: (Bultmann). Gospels are proclamations. Seeking of Jesus of history is illegitimate and impossible. We meet Christ of faith through tradition and that is enough. No need to go back to the Jesus of history.

            d> New-quest:(Kasemann). Gospels are historical kerygma. It is possible and legitimate to meet Jesus of history. Here Jesus of history is consistent with Christ of faith. Therefore faith is reasonable. It holds that through the kerygmatic proclamation of the Gospels, we can get at least and only a portrait of Jesus. And this proves that the historical portrait of Js is the same as the Js of kerygmatic proclamation.

To establish the historicity of Christ event we apply 3 criteria:

a> The criterion of multiple attestation: It judges a story or saying be probably historical if it is found in tow or more independent original sources of the gospel traditions e.g, Beelzebub story (Mt 12, 25-29 = L 11, 1-22).

b> The criterion of Discrepancy: it judges  a story or a saying to be authentic if it does not fit in with the jewish or greek thought patterns of the time, nor with the theology of the early church. eg., Baptism of John.

c> The Criterion  of Coherence: Judges a word or an event to be probably historical, if it fits into the milieu of first century Palestine and bears the mar of the characteristic style of Jesus' life and teaching. eg., Parables.

            It is clear the gospels are not historical documents but faith documents from `faith to faith' ie., records of the faith experience written down to provoke the same experience in others.  Gospels are the kerygmatic proclamations. Hence can we treat them as historical documents to reach at Jesus of history.

            We cannot treat the gospels in themselves as historical documents in its scientific sense but certainly they have something to do with the Jesus of history. So with the available sources and techniques we can reach the historical person of Jesus.

Differentiate: Jesus of history, the historical Jesus and the Christ of Faith:

         Jesus of History

(1) It is the Jesus as existed 2000 yrs ago at Palestine.

(2) It is utterly impossible to get back to this Js. as He is dead and gone.

            Historical Jesus

(1) It is the Jesus whom the historians discovered.

(2) It too can never be a full picture of the Js of Palestine.

            Christ of faith

(1) It is the Js experienced and interpreted by the early community.

(2) It is the Js of faith, communicated by faith.

            Hence, what we can reconstruct to a some extent is only the portrait of historical Js and never the Js of history.

            The object of Christian faith is the Christ of faith, in whom we believe without asking for any evidence.

Limitations of Historical Method: This critical method may take one to a Js more closer to a historical Js. The various methods used in this method ensure the authenticity of the texts, of the authors of the texts and of the age it belongs. It gives us the meaning of the texts as the authors meant, in the context of their audience. BUT this method doesn't give me the today's existential meaning for me in my context.

2.b. Is it Important/necessary to know Jesus of History? Necessary but not absolutely necessary. This grain of history helps us to ground our faith. It saves our faith from being naive for we believe in historical revelation thus we need at least the barest outline of it. We should have some basis in history. Everything cannot be said as fictitious, imaginary and entirely the creation of the evangelists. Critical study of the Bible changes my belief system and deepens my faith commitment; to enable us to encounter the Jesus in whom we believe and to assure us that in believing in him we are not staking our lives on an illusion and a myth.  The assumption of historical criticism and the pre-occupation of scholarship on `history' will always be challenged. For the Bible is not giving us history for history's sake, but it is giving us mystery of life in an historical, anthropological language. In other words the gospels do not primarily provide us with Jesus of history, though it contain bits and pieces of information, but Christ of faith and our commitment to him by entering into the mystery of life.