The Gospels as Myths that Convey Moral Truths Rather than Record of Fact
Statement Three – The Gospels should be regarded as myths that convey
moral truths rather then record of fact.
Question – Explain and assess this claim with reference to the
different approaches to the New Testament and evaluate the
consequences for Christians of holding such a position.
Several of reasons have to be looked to see why was the Gospels
written and what effect has it got on the Christian communities. When
I have answered this question I can only then know whether the Gospels
should be regarded as myths that convey truths then records of fact
and what the ...view middle of the document...
Liturgical and Cultic Activities – This is a detail description as
to how rituals should be performed for example Jesus Baptism is
The main purpose of the Gospels, which was recorded, was to preserve
the words and the acts of Jesus. Overall they were no abundant account
of this, they were used to guide the Christians community and to
preach to other societies and the other illustrations used of Jesus
work were adapted to suit the needs of the preacher.
The main way the Gospels was summarised is in one phrase ‘sitz im
leben’. It is translated to as situation in life. It was also
written according to the climate the preacher’s lived in.
The Bible has been criticised over several of centuries. But it is
not the word ‘criticism’ which is used in everyday English. The word
criticism here means to make a careful analysis leading to an informal
judgement. Source, Textual and Form these are the criticism. These
need to be approached.
Source criticism. This was used in the first five Hebrew Scriptures
in the 18th century and then was applied to the Gospels. The acts of
Jesus were passed on by the word of mouth and some was written down.
The authors of the New Testament used a variety of sources oral and
written but none lasted.
Textual was an activity designed to establish what the authors wrote
to the Biblical text and was it actually written to their scrolls.
Here critics work with the earliest scriptures available to them.
Pundits now rose two questions:
1. Was there a document now containing the saying of Jesus?
2. Was there a relation between the three synoptic Gospels?
It was thought that Mark shortened Mathews Gospels. But at the
present time is it believed that Mathew and Luke drew on Marks
Gospels. There is a sense of confusion as to ‘which came first’? But
this question the authority of the Gospels as to if they are strong in
Form criticism is considered with the miracles and saying of Jesus.
Form criticism is also in the fourth Gospels, why does Luke include
material removed by Mark? Three are many reasons why this happened.
1. Both of them had access to different information regarding Jesus
2. Had different interest which links with ‘sitz im leben’.
The Form criticism flourished in Germany. Some fundamentalist critics
said that the early Christian Church would attribute things to Jesus,
which was clearly invented.
From this criticism, it is learned that it could be possible that the
information of Jesus could not be correct because the information was
delivered orally. This could have leaded to people over saying and
also people forgetting parts. Also the written information had been
lost. The different Gospels have different things, some have more
information and others have totally different...