Which better repesnts the voice of the historical Jesus?

[Elijah John]

Which Gospel or Gospels better represent the voice of the real, historical Jesus, the Synoptics, or the Gospel of John? Why?

Which Gospel or Gospels better represent the "Christ of Faith"? The Synoptics or the Gospel of John? Why?

[Overcomer]

It isn't that one is better than another. They all serve a purpose and complement each other.

Matthew was written for a Jewish audience. That's why he quotes the Old Testament so often. He is showing them how Jesus fulfilled all the many prophecies about the Messiah -- prophecies that Jews were familiar with.

Mark wrote for a Roman audience. This is why he takes the time to describe Jewish customs such as hand-washing, things that Romans wouldn't understand. And he translates Aramaic for them. Additionally, this is why he fills his gospel with so many accounts of miracles. Romans were all about power! He wanted to show them the power of Jesus. And his writing style is a breathless one, fast-paced, full of action, showing Jesus as a man of action -- again, written to appeal to a Roman readership.

Luke was a Greek writing for a Greek audience. The Greeks were noted for their culture and the pursuit of truth and knowledge. So Luke makes a point of explaining that he interviewed a lot of people to get at the truth. He doesn't quote the Old Testament much, but when he does, he quotes the Septuagint, that is, the Greek Bible. And he avoids Jewish words such as rabbi -- words that were meaningless to Greeks.

John wrote his gospel for all believers, whether Jew or Gentile, Roman or Greek. He explains who Jesus is (Son of God, God Incarnate, Saviour, the sole way to God the Father) and who they are as followers of Christ (forgiven, redeemed, beloved).

Matthew was one of the disciples. Mark got his information from Peter, also one of the disciples. Luke pointed out that he talked to people who knew Jesus. John was one of the disciples. See here:

https://www.gotquestions.org/when-Gospels-written.html

http://coldcasechristianity.com/tag/ear ... e-gospels/

[steveb1]

Which Gospel or Gospels better represent the voice of the real, historical Jesus, the Synoptics, or the Gospel of John? Why?

Which Gospel or Gospels better represent the "Christ of Faith"? The Synoptics or the Gospel of John? Why?

Since I currently embrace Christ Myth theory, I doubt that there was a historical Jesus.

Having said that, John's Jesus - at least in his self-revelatory statements - paradoxically comes the closest of any of the Gospels to portraying the celestial, "docetic"/"Gnostic Christ".

John's Jesus's "I am" statements and other self-identifiers place his Jesus as a superhuman, pre-existent being who makes self-revelations about the glory he had with God before the world was made, who makes claims to have in his own lifetime both ascended from/returned to heaven, who claims to know the Father on an intimate, pre-terrestrial level, who John claims is the incarnation of a "word" that was "in the beginning" with the Father, and by whom "all things were made".

If it wasn't for John's biological/geophysical Incarnation conception, his Jesus comes very close to being identical to the Jesus of Christ Myth - the pre-existent angelic "Son of God, Christ, Savior" of Paul and the earliest Epistles.

Of course, my reply is off-topic, since your OP was about the historical Jesus. So I guess I sort of spoke out of turn, but I couldn't resist pointing out how similar John's Jesus is to the celestial, non-material Jesus that Carrier and other Christ mythicists claim to have uncovered.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 3 by steveb1]

No problem, but it could be argued that the "Christ of Faith" is equal to a mythic, fabricated Jesus. And John's Gospel does seem to present him this way, though for John's Jesus was probably real to him. Unless, of course, John was a co-conspirator for an invented Jesus?

Either way, for many, (many HJ scholars included) John's Jesus is less believable than is the Jesus presented in the Synoptics.

If there was an actual, historical Jesus, (and I believe there was), the Synptic Jesus seems far more in harmony with the context of his native Judaism and the culture of first century Palestine.

[steveb1]

[Replying to post 3 by steveb1]

No problem, but it could be argued that the "Christ of Faith" is equal to a mythic, fabricated Jesus. And John's Gospel does seem to present him this way, though for John's Jesus was probably real to him. Unless, of course, John was a co-conspirator for an invented Jesus?

Either way, for many, (many HJ scholars included) John's Jesus is less believable than is the Jesus presented in the Synoptics.

If there was an actual, historical Jesus, (and I believe there was), the Synptic Jesus seems far more in harmony with the context of his native Judaism and the culture of first century Palestine.

Yes, that's what I was taught and what I believed when I was sailing in historicist waters. I had to unlearn it the more I ventured into mythicism.

However, I haven't dropped it altogether, because all it would take is the discovery of that "one white crow" in the form of a letter written by Jesus or even by one of his first disciples, or some contemporary historian's note, or a government record, to turn mythicism on its ear. I'm sort of keeping the historical/Gospel Jesus on the back burner for a rainy day, christologically speaking, when the Christ Myth might be defeated by ancient writings and/or artifacts. It's like how archaeology is constantly pushing back Native American occupancy of the New World - one little change alters the whole picture...

[liamconnor]

Which Gospel or Gospels better represent the voice of the real, historical Jesus, the Synoptics, or the Gospel of John? Why?

Which Gospel or Gospels better represent the "Christ of Faith"? The Synoptics or the Gospel of John? Why?

Great questions:

As for the "historical Jesus": unfortunately, it is impossible to answer with absolute certainty: the question involves a comparison between two disparate specimens (synoptics vs. John) against a standardized background (the real historical Jesus) which we do not have. However, I think there are some facts we can infer based on some observations:

John's Jesus never speaks a parable, while the synoptics' Jesus is famous for them. I find it easier to imagine that Jesus did in fact speak parables, and that these did not contribute to the design of the fourth gospel, than that the authors of the synoptics simply made up this aspect of Jesus' ministry. I am inclined to think that the real Jesus did speak often in parables, and that at least those in Mark are authentic.

John's Jesus has a very high level of self-awareness. I find it very difficult to believe that had Jesus said such things as "Before Abraham I AM" these would not have made it into the synoptic tradition.

Of all the gospel material that appears in the Pauline corpus, all of it comes from the synoptics.

In short, I value the historicity of the gospels in this order: Mark, Luke, Matthew, John.

However, if John is wholly fictional, we can only applaud him as penning one of the most alarming and stirring historical fictions ever written. He was a literary genius in his own right.

As for "The Christ of FAith": I take this to mean which gospel imposes on what was only a mundane, fully human Jewish preacher, all the fictitious burden of being raised and divine. If my definition is correct, then all the gospels present Jesus as 1) being raised and 2) possessing a unique relationship with God which no man has ever possessed; a relationship which has compelled many (myself included) into calling him God.