Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

Theoretical Gnosis and Doctrinal Sufism and Their Significance Today

Seyyed Hossein Nasr

George Washington University

Published by:

Transcendent Philosophy 1, 1-36 © London Academy of Iranian Studies

Table of Contents

Abstract 3

Introduction. 4

A Brief History of the Tradition of Theoretical Gnosis 5

The Arab World. 8

Ottoman Turkey. 10

Muslim India. 11

Southeast Asia. 13

China. 14

Persia. 15

With What Does Theoretical Gnosis Deal?  20

The Present Day Significance of Theoretical Gnosis 23

Endnotes 25

Abstract

This essay examines the meaning, role and structure of that supreme science of the Real which came to be known as al-tasawwuf al-'ilmi or 'irfan-i nazari in Islamic civilization. It then turns to the history of this science beginning with Ibn 'Arabi and his immediate circle and then considers each region of the Islamic world separately from Morocco to the Malay world. Special attention is paid to the great masters of 'irfan-i nazari in Persia from the earliest teachers to those of the present day. The relation of this science to philosophy, kalam, and other intellectual disciplines is discussed and its spiritual significance is studied in itself and in its relation to the operative and practical aspects of Sufism. At the end of the essay a section is devoted to the significance of 'irfan today and its role in providing solutions for some of the most important intellectual and spiritual issues facing the contemporary Islam world.

Introduction

There is a body of knowledge in the Islamic tradition which, while highly intellectual in the original sense of this term, is neither theology (kalām) nor philosophy (falsafah) while dealing with many subjects of their concern although from another perspective. This body of knowledge is called doctrinal Sufism, al-tasawwuf al-‘ilmī in Arabic, to be contrasted to practical Sufism, al-tasawwuf al-‘amalī, or theoretical (and sometimes speculative) gnosis (this term being understood in its original and not sectarian sense), especially in the Persian-speaking world, where it is referred to as ‘irfān-i nazarī. The seekers and masters of this body of knowledge have always considered it to be the Supreme Science, al-‘ilm al-a‘lā, and it corresponds in the Islamic context to what we have called elsewhere scientia sacra.1 This corpus of knowledge is implicit in the Quran, Hadīth, and the writings of early Sufis. It becomes somewhat more explicit from the 4th/10th century onward in works of such masters as Hakīm Tirmidhī, Abū Hāmid Muhammad and Ahmad Ghazzālī, and ‘Ayn al-Qudāt Hamadānī and receives its full elaboration in the 7th/13th century in the hands of Ibn ‘Arabī, not all of whose writings are, however, concerned with this Supreme Science. This corpus is distinct from other genres of Sufi writing such as manuals for the practice of Sufism, works on spiritual virtues, Sufi hagiographies, Sufi poetry, etc. but during the past seven centuries this body of knowledge has exercised great influence on most other aspects of Sufism and also on later Islamic philosophy and even kalām.

Despite its immense influence in many parts of the Islamic world during the last centuries, doctrinal Sufism or theoretical gnosis has also had its opponents over the centuries, including certain scholars of the Quran and Hadīth, some of the more exoterist jurists, many of the theologians (mutakallimūn), some of the more rationalistic philosophers and even some Sufis associated with Sufi centers (khānqāh or zāwiyah) and established orders. The latter have opposed the theoretical exposition of truths which they believe should be kept hidden and which they consider to be associated closely with spiritual practice and inward unveiling (kashf).2 Still, this body of knowledge has been preserved and has continued to flourish over all these centuries, exercising immense influence in many domains of Islamic thought while remaining for many the crown of all knowledge.

A Brief History of the Tradition of Theoretical Gnosis

Before turning to theoretical gnosis itself and its significance today, it is necessary to provide a brief history over the ages in the Islamic tradition of the expressions of this Supreme Science which itself stands beyond history and temporal development, being at the heart of the philosohia perennis as understood by traditional authorities,3 and not being bound in its essence by the local coloring of various epochs and places. Of course, the wisdom with which this Supreme Science deals has always been and will always be, but it has received distinct formulations in the framework of various traditions at whose heart is to be found this wisdom concerning the nature of reality. In the Islamic tradition this knowledge was handed down in a principial manner by the Prophet to a number of his companions, chief among them ‘Alī, and in later generations to the Sufi masters and of course the Shi‘ite Imams, many of whom were in fact also poles of Sufism of their day.4 Besides being transmitted orally, this knowledge was often expressed in the form of allusions, elliptical expressions, symbolic poems and the like.

Gradually from the 4th/10th century onward some Sufis such as Hakīm Abū ‘Abd Allāh Tirmidhī (d. circa 320/938) began to write more systematically on certain aspects of Sufi doctrine. For example, Tirmidhī wrote on the central Sufi doctrine of walāyah/wilāyah, that is, initiatic and spiritual power as well as sanctity. During the century after him, Abū Hāmid Muhammad Ghazzālī (d. 505/1111) wrote on divine knowledge itself in both the Ihyā’ and such shorter treatises as al-Risālat al-laduniyyah (only attributed to him according to some scholars) as well as writing an esoteric commentary on the Light Verse of the Quran in his Mishkāt al-anwār. His brother Ahmad (d. 520/1126) expounded gnosis and metaphysics in the language of love in his Sawānih. Shortly afterwards, ‘Ayn al-Qudāt Hamadānī (d. 525/1131) dealt with the subject of divine knowledge and a philosophical exposition of certain Sufi teachings in his Maktūbāt and Tamhīdāt while in his Zubdah he criticized the existing rationalistic currents in the thought of some philosophers and pointed to another way of knowing which is none other than gnosis. These figures in turn prepared the ground for Ibn ‘Arabī, although he is a colossal and providential figure whose writings cannot be reduced to simply historical influences of his predecessors.5

Many have quite rightly considered Ibn ‘Arabī as the father of theoretical gnosis or doctrinal Sufism.6 His writings as already mentioned are not, however, concerned only with pure metaphysics and gnosis. They also deal extensively with Quranic and Hadīth commentary, the meaning of religious rites, various traditional sciences including the science of the symbolic significance of letters of the Arabic alphabet, ethics, law and many other matters, including poetry, all of which also are of an esoteric and gnostic nature. As far as the subject of this essay is concerned, it will be confined to works devoted completely to theoretical gnosis and metaphysics, works which deal directly with the Supreme Science of the Real. Otherwise, every work of Ibn ‘Arabī and his School is related in one way or another to gnosis

or ma‘rifah as are writings of many other Sufis. The seminal work of Ibn ‘Arabī on the subject of gnosis and one which is foundational to the whole tradition of theoretical gnosis in Islam is the Fusūs al-hikam (“Bezels of Wisdom”)7 along with certain sections of his magnum opus al-Futūhāt al-makkiyyah, (“The Meccan Illuminations),8 and a few of his shorter treatises including Naqsh alfusūs which is Ibn ‘Arabī’s own commentary upon the Fusūs.

In any case the Fusūs was taken by later commentators as the central text of the tradition of theoretical gnosis or doctrinal Sufism. Many of the major later works of this tradition are in fact commentaries upon this inspired text. The history of these commentaries, many of which are “original” works themselves, stretching from the 7th/13th century to this day, is itself of great import for the understanding of this tradition and also reveals the widespread nature of the influence of this tradition from Morocco to the Malay world and China. Unfortunately, despite so much scholarship carried out in this field during the past few decades, there is still no thorough history of commentaries upon the Fusūs any more than there is a detailed history of the tradition of theoretical gnosis and/or Sufi metaphysics itself.

Ibn ‘Arabī died in Damascus in 638/1240 and it was from there that his teachings were disseminated. Some of his immediate students, who were particularly drawn to pure metaphysics and gnosis, with a number also having had training in Islamic philosophy, began to interpret the master’s teachings and especially his Fusūs in a more systematic and philosophical fashion thereby laying the ground for the systematic formulation of that Supreme Science of the Real with which the tradition of theoretical gnosis is concerned. The first commentator upon the Fusūs was Ibn ‘Arabī’s immediate student and Qūnawī’s close companion, ‘Afīf al-Dīn al-Tilimsānī (690/1291) who commented upon the whole text but in summary fashion.9 But the most influential propagator of the master’s teachings in the domain of gnosis and metaphysics and the person who gave the systematic exposition that characterizes later expressions of theoretical gnosis is Sadr al-Dīn Qūnawī (d. 673/1274).10 This most important student of Ibn ‘Arabī did not write a commentary on the text of the Fusūs, but he did write a work entitled al-Fukūk which explains the titles of the chapters of the Fusūs and was considered by many a later Sufi and gnostic as a key for the understanding of the mysteries of Ibn ‘Arabī’s text.11 Qūnawī is also the author of a number of other works of a gnostic (‘irfānī) nature, chief among them the Miftāh al-ghayb, a monumental work of theoretical gnosis which, along with its commentary by Shams al-Dīn Fanārī known as Misbāh al-uns, became one of the premier texts for the teaching of theoretical gnosis especially in Turkey and Persia.12

Qūnawī trained a number of students who themselves became major figures in the tradition of theoretical gnosis. But before turning to them it is necessary to mention a poet who was a contemporary of Ibn ‘Arabī and who was to play an exceptional role in the later history of this tradition. This poet is ‘Umar ibn al-Fārid (d. 632/1235), perhaps the greatest Sufi poet of the Arabic language, whose al-

Tā’iyyah is considered as a complete exposition of the doctrines of ‘irfān expressed in sublime poetry, and the subject of several commentaries which are themselves seminal texts of ‘irfān.13 There were also many important Persian poets such as Fakhr al-Dīn ‘Irāqī (d. 688/1289), Awhad al-Dīn Kirmānī (d. 635/1238), Shams al-Dīn Maghribī (d. 809/1406-07), Mahmūd Shabistarī (d. circa 718/1318), and ‘Abd al-Rahmān Jāmī (d. 898/1492), not to speak of Turkish poets and those of the Subcontinent who expressed Ibn ‘Arabian teachings in the medium of poetry but their poems do not belong strictly to doctrinal texts of the tradition of theoretical gnosis with which we are concerned here although some of the commentaries on their poetry do, such as Sharh-i gulshan-i rāz of Shams al-Dīn Lāhījī (d. before 900/1494) as do some poetic texts such as Ashi‘‘at allama‘āt and Lawā’ih of Jāmī.

Returning to Qūnawī’s students, as far as the subject of this essay is concerned the most notable and influential for the later tradition was first of all Sa‘īd al-Dīn Farghānī (d. 695/1296) who collected the commentaries of his master in Persian on the Tā’iyyah and on their basis composed a major work in both Persian and Arabic (which contains certain additions) with the title Mashāriq al-darārī and Muntaha’l-madārik, respectively.14 Secondly, one must mention Mu’ayyid al-Dīn Jandī (d. 700/1300), the author of the first extensive commentary upon the Fusūs15 which also influenced the very popular commentary of his student ‘Abd al-Razzāq Kāshānī (d. 730/1330).16

Both of these men also wrote other notable works on theoretical gnosis such as the Persian treatise Nafhat al-rūh wa tuhfat al-futūh of Jandī and the Arabic Ta’wīl al-qur’ān of Kāshānī which has been also mistakenly attributed to Ibn ‘Arabī. This work is illustrative of a whole genre of writings which explain the principles of gnosis and metaphysics on the basis of commentary upon the inner levels of meaning of the Quran. During this early period, when the School of theoretical gnosis was taking shape, there were other figures of importance associated with the circle of Ibn ‘Arabī and Qūnawī although not the students of the latter such as Sa‘d al-Dīn Hamūyah (d. 649/1252) and his student ‘Azīz al-Dīn Nasafī (d. before 700/1300) who wrote several popular works in Persian based on the doctrine of wahdat al-wujūd and al-insān al-kāmil. It is not possible, however, in this short historical review to deal with all such figures.

The Arab World

From this early foundation located in Syria and Anatolia the teachings of the School of Ibn ‘Arabī and theoretical gnosis spread to different regions of the Islamic world. In summary fashion we shall try to deal with some of the most important figures in each region. Let us commence with the Arab world. In the Maghrib a very strong Sufi tradition has been preserved over the centuries but Maghribī Sufism, although devoted to gnosis in its purest form as we see in such figures as Abū Madyan, Ibn Mashīsh and Abu’l-Hasan al-Shādhilī, was not given to long theoretical expositions of gnosis as we see in the East.17

Most works from this region were concerned with the practice of the Sufi path and explanation of practical Sufi teachings. One had to wait for the 12th/18th century to find in the works of Ahmad ibn ‘Ajībah (d. 1224/1809-10) treatises which belong to the genre of theoretical gnosis. But the oral tradition based on Ibn ‘Arabian teachings was kept alive as we see in the personal instructions and also written works of such celebrated 14th/20th century Sufi masters of the Maghrib as Shaykh al-‘Alawī (d. 1353/1934) and Shaykh Muhammad al-Tādilī (d. 1371/1952).18 Maghribī works on gnosis tended, however, to be usually less systematic and philosophical in their exposition of gnosis than those of the East.

A supreme example of Ibn ‘Arabian teachings emanating from the Maghrib is to be found in the writings of the celebrated Algerian amīr and Sufi master ‘Abd al-Qādir al-Jazā’irī (d. 1300/1883), who taught the works of Ibn ‘Arabī when in exile in Damascus. Amīr ‘Abd al-Qādir also composed a number of independent works on gnosis such as the Kitāb al-mawāqif.19 To this day the text of the Fusūs and the Futūhāt are taught in certain Sufi enters of the Maghrib especially those associated with the Shādhiliyyah Order which has continued to produce over the centuries its own distinct genre of Sufi literature going back to the prayers of Abu’l-Hasan al-Shādhilī (d. 656/1258) and especially the treatises of the third pole of the Order, Ibn ‘Atā’ Allāh al-Iskandarī (d.709/1309). In later centuries these two currents, the first issuing from early Shādhilism and the second from Ibn ‘Arabian gnosis were to meet in many notable figures of Sufism from that as well as other regions.

There was greater interest in theoretical gnosis in the eastern part of the Arab world as far as the production of written texts is concerned. Strangely enough, however, Egypt, which has always been a major center of Sufism, is an exception. In that ancient land there has always been more interest in practical Sufism and Sufi ethics than in speculative thought and doctrinal Sufism although Akbarian teachings had spread to Mamluk Egypt in the 7th/13th century. There were also some popularizers of Ibn ‘Arabī’s teachings in Egypt, perhaps chief among them ‘Abd al-Wahhāb al-Sha‘rānī (d. 973/1565), whose well known works present a more popular version of the Futūhāt and Fusūs.20 He tried also to link Shādhilī teachings with those of Ibn ‘Arabī. There are, however, few notable commentaries on classical texts of gnosis in Egypt in comparison with those one finds in many other lands. Theoretical gnosis was, nevertheless, taught and studied by many Egyptian figures. In this context it is interesting to note that even the

modernist reformer Muhammad ‘Abduh turned to the study of Ibn ‘Arabī later in life.

Opposition to these writings has remained, however, strong to this day in many circles in that land as one sees in the demonstrations in front of the Egyptian Parliament some years ago on the occasion of the publication of the Futūhāt by Osman Yahya who had edited the text critically.

In the Yemen there was great interest in Ibn ‘Arabian gnosis in the School of Zabīd especially under the Rasūlids up to the 9th/15th century. Ismā‘ī al-Jabartī (d. 806/1403), Ahmad ibn al-Raddād (d. 821/1417-18) and ‘Abd al-Karīm al-Jīlī (d. 832/1428) were particularly significant figures of this School in the Yemen.21 Al-Jīlī, Theoretical Gnosis and Doctrinal Sufism and Their Significance Today 9

who was originally Persian but resided in the Yemen, is particularly important because of his magnum opus, al-Insān al-kāmil, a primary work of gnosis that is used as a text for the instruction of theoretical gnosis from Morocco to India to this day. It is a more systematic exposition of the teaching of Ibn ‘Arabī.22

In the eastern Arab world it was especially in greater Palestine and Syria that one sees continuous interest in theoretical gnosis and the writing of important commentaries on Ibn ‘Arabī such as that of ‘Abd al-Ghanyī al-Nābulusī (d. 1143/1731) on the Fusūs.23

Also, the defense by Ibrāhīm ibn Hasan al-Kurānī (d. 1101/1690), a Kurdish scholar who resided in Mecca, of the gnosis of Ibn ‘Arabī had much influence in Syria and adjoining areas. Although, as in Egypt and elsewhere, many jurists and theologians in Syria going back to Ibn Taymiyyah and students of Sa‘d al-Dīn al-Taftāzanī, opposed the doctrines of Ibn ‘Arabian gnosis, this School remained very much alive and continues to survive to this day in that region.

One of the most remarkable contemporary Sufis who died in Beirut just a few years ago, the woman saint, Sayyidah Fātimah al-

Yashrutiyyah, gave the title al-Rihlah ila’l-Haqq to her major work on Sufism on the basis of a dream of Ibn ‘Arabī.24

Ottoman Turkey

Turning to the Turkish part of the Ottoman world, we find a continuous and strong tradition in the study of theoretical gnosis going back to al-Qūnawī himself and his circle in Konya. Foremost among these figures after the founding of this School are Dā’ūd Qaysarī (d. 751/1350) and Shams al-Dīn Fanārī (d. 834/1431). A student of Kāshānī, Qaysarī wrote a number of works on gnosis, including his commentary on the Tā’iyyah of Ibn al-Fārid, but chief among them is his commentary upon the Fusūs, which is one of the most thorough and remains popular to this day.25 He also wrote an introduction to this work called al-Muqaddimah which summarizes the whole cycle of gnostic doctrines in a masterly fashion and has been itself the subject of many commentaries including important glosses by Ayatollah Khomeini to which we shall turn shortly and a magisterial one by Sayyid Jalāl al-Dīn Āshtiyānī (d. 1426/2005).26 As for Fanārī, besides being a chief qādī in the Ottoman Empire and a major authority on Islamic Law, he was the author of what many Turkish and Persian students of gnosis consider as the most advanced text of ‘irfān, namely the Misbāh al-uns.27 It is strange that today in Bursa where he is buried as elsewhere in Turkey, he is known primarily as a jurist and in Persia as a gnostic. In addition to these two major figures, one can mention Bālī Effendi (d. 960/1553), well known commentator of Ibn ‘Arabī, and many other Sufis who left behind notable works on theoretical gnosis up the 14th/20th century. In fact the influence of this School in the Ottoman world was very extensive including in such areas as Bosnia and is to be found in many different types of Turkish thinkers into the contemporary period. Among the most famous among them one can name Ahmed Avni Konuk (d. 1357/1938) who wrote a four volume commentary on the Fusūs ; his contemporary Ferid Ram (d. 1363/1944), who was at the same time a gnostic, philosopher and political figure and the author of several works on Ibn ‘Arabian gnosis; and Ismail Fenni Ertugrul (d. 1359/1940), a philosopher who used the teachings of Ibn ‘Arabī to refute the errors of modern Western philosophy, especially materialism. His writings contributed greatly to the revival of interest in metaphysics in 14th/20th century Turkey.28

Muslim India

We have been moving eastward in this brief historical survey and logically we should now turn to Persia and adjacent areas including Shi‘ite Iraq, which has been closely associated with Persia intellectually since the Safavid period and Afghanistan which also belongs to the same intellectual world as Persia. Because, however, of the central role played in Persia in the cultivation of ‘irfān-i nazarī during the past few centuries, we shall turn to it at the end of this survey and first direct our attention farther east to India, Southeast Asia and China.

Although a thorough study has never been made of all the important figures associated with the School of Ibn ‘Arabī and theoretical gnosis in the Indian Subcontinent, the research that has been carried out so far reveals a very widespread influence of this School in that area. Already in the 8th/14th century Sayyid ‘Alī Hamadānī, the Persian Sufi who migrated to Kashmir (d. 786/1385), helped to spread Ibn ‘Arabī’s ideas in India. He not only wrote a Persian commentary on the Fusūs, but also composed a number of independent treatises on ‘irfān.29 A century later ‘Alā’ al-Dīn ‘Alī ibn Ahmad Mahā’imī (d. 835/1432) not only commented upon the Fusūs and Qūnāwī’s Nusūs, but also wrote several independent expositions of gnosis of a more philosophical nature in Arabic. These works are related in many ways in approach to later works on gnosis written in Persia. He also wrote an Arabic commentary upon Shams al-Dīn Maghribī’s Jām-i jahānnamāy which some believe received much of its inspiration from the Mashāriq al-darārī of Farghānī. It is interesting to note that Maghribī’s poetry, which like that of many other poets such as Kirmānī, ‘Irāqī, Shabistarī, Shāh Ni‘mat Allāh Walī (d. 834/1431) and Jāmī were based on basic gnostic theses such as wahdat al-wujūd, was especially appreciated by those followers of the School of Ibn ‘Arabī who were acquainted with the Persian language as was the poetry of Ibn al-Fārid among Arab, Persian, Turkish and Indian followers of that School.

Notable exponents of theoretical gnosis in India are numerous and even the better known ones cannot be mentioned here.30 But it is necessary to mention one figure who is probably the most profound master of this School in the Subcontinent. He is Muhibb Allāh Ilāhābādī (also known as Allāhābādī) (d. 1058/1648).31 Author of an Arabic and even longer Persian commentary on the Fusūs and also an authoritative commentary on the Futūhāt, Ilāhābādī also wrote independent treatises on ‘irfān. His writings emphasize intellection and sapience rather than just spiritual states which many Sufis in India as elsewhere claimed as the sole source of divine knowledge.

The significance of the works of Muhibb Allāh Ilāhābādī in the tradition of theoretical gnosis under consideration in this essay and his later influence in India are immense. He marks one of the major peaks of the School not only in India, but in the whole of the Islamic world.

The central thesis of Ibn ‘Arabian gnosis, that is, wahdat alwujūd had a life of its own in India. While certain Sufis, such as Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindī, opposed its usual interpretation, it was embraced by many Sufis including such great saints as Gīsū Dirāz and Nizām al-Dīn Awliyā’ and

many of their disciples. One can hardly imagine the history of Sufism in the Subcontinent without the central role played by ‘irfān-i nazarī. Even notable Indian philosophers and theologians such as Shāh Walī Allāh (d. 1176/1762) of Delhi wrote works highly inspired by this School whose influence continued into the 14th/20th century as we see in some of the works of Mawlānā Ashraf ‘Alī Thanwī (d. 1362/1943).32 Moreover, once the philosophical School of Illumination (ishrāq) and the Transcendent Theosophy or Philosophy (al-hikmat al-muta‘āliyah) reached India, there were many interactions between these Schools and the School of ‘irfān as we also see in Persia itself.

Southeast Asia

Turning to Southeast Asia and the Malay world, here we encounter a unique phenomenon, namely the role of the School of Ibn ‘Arabī, sometimes called wujūdiyyah, in the very formation of Malay as an intellectual language suitable for Islamic discourse. Hamzah Fansūrī (d. 1000/1592), the most important figure of this School, was a major Malay poet and played a central role in the development of Malay as an Islamic language while he also had a command of Arabic and Persian. He was, moreover, a master of the doctrines of the School of Ibn ‘Arabī.33 He was followed in his attachment to this School by Shams al-Dīn Sumātrānī (d. 1040/1630). Although this School was opposed by certain other Malay Sufis such as Nūr al-Dīn Rānirī and most Malays paid more attention to the operative rather than the doctrinal aspect of Sufism, the School of theoretical gnosis continued to be studied in certain places and even today there are circles in Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia where the teachings of this School are followed and many of the classical texts continue to be studied.34

China

A word must also be said about China. Until the 11th/17th century Chinese Muslims who dealt with intellectual matters did so on the basis of Arabic and Persian texts. It was only in the 11th/17th century that they began to use classical Chinese and to seek to express Islamic metaphysics and philosophy in the language of Neo-Confucianism. Henceforth, there developed a significant body of Islamic thought in Chinese that is being systematically studied only now. It is interesting to note that two of the classical Islamic works to be rendered the earliest into Chinese are firstly the Lawā’ih of Jāmī, which is a masterly summary of ‘irfān in Persian, translated by Liu Chih (d. circa 1670) as Chen-chao-wei (“Displaying the Concealment of the Real Realm”); and secondly the Ashi‘‘at al-lama‘āt also by Jāmī and again, as already mentioned, dealing with ‘irfān, translated by P’o Na-chih (d. after 1697) as Chao-yüan pi-chüeh (“The Mysterious Secret of the Original Display”).35 Also the first Chinese Muslim thinker to expound Islamic teachings in Chinese, that is, Wang Tai-yü (d. 1657 or 1658), who wrote his Real Commentary on the True Teaching in 1642 to be followed by several other works, was steeped in the same ‘irfānī tradition. The School of theoretical gnosis was therefore destined to play a major role in the encounter on the highest level between the Chinese and the Islamic intellectual traditions during the past few centuries.

Persia

Persia was destined to become one of the main centers, if not the central arena, for the later development of theoretical gnosis. The circle of Qūnawī was already closely connected to the Persian cultural world and many of its members, including Qūnawī himself, wrote in Persian. Qūnawī’s student, Fakhr al-Dīn ‘Irāqī is considered one of the greatest poets of the Persian language. Among other early members of the School one can mention Sa‘d al-Dīn Hamūyah, his disciple ‘Azīz al-Dīn Nasafī, who wrote on gnosis in readily accessible Persian, Awhad al-Dīn Balyānī (d. 686/1288) from Shiraz, whose famous Risālat al-ahadiyyah was for a long time attributed to Ibn ‘Arabī,36 and ‘Abd al-Razzāq Kāshānī who, as already mentioned, is a major figure of the School of theoretical gnosis and a prominent commentator upon the Fusūs. From the 8th/14th century onward in Persia we see on the one hand the continuation of the School of theoretical gnosis through the appearance of prose works in both Arabic and Persian either in the form of commentary upon the Fusūs and other seminal texts of this School or as independent treatises. On the other hand we observe the deep influence of this School in Sufi literature, especially poetry. A supreme example is the Gulshan-i rāz of Mahmūd Shabistarī, one of the greatest masterpieces of Persian Sufi poetry which summarizes the principles of Ibn ‘Arabian gnosis in verses of celestial beauty. That is why its commentary by Muhammad Lāhījī in the 9th/15th century is such a major text of theoretical gnosis. Here, however, we are only concerned with the prose and systematic works of theoretical gnosis and not the poetical tradition but the nexus between the two should not be forgotten as we see in the works of ‘Irāqī, Shāh Ni‘mat Allāh Walī, Jāmī and many others.

Another important event that took place in the 8th/14th century and left its deep influence upon the history of the School during the Safavid, Qajar and Pahlavi periods was the integration of Ibn ‘Arabian gnosis into Shi‘ism which possesses its own gnostic teachings to which scholars refer as ‘irfān-i shī‘ī. These two outwardly distinct schools are inwardly connected and go back to the original esoteric and gnostic dimension of the Islamic revelation. It was most of all Sayyid Haydar Āmulī (d. 787/1385) who brought about a synthesis of these two branches of the tree of gnosis, although he also did make certain criticisms of Ibn ‘Arabī, especially concerning the question of walāyah/wilāyah. Many others walked later in his footsteps. Āmulī was at once a major Twelve-Imam Shi‘ite theologian and a Sufi devoted to the School of Ibn ‘Arabī. His Jāmi‘ al-asrār is a pivotal text for the gnosis of Ibn ‘Arabī in a Shi‘ite context.37 He was also the author of a major commentary upon the Fusūs as well as independent metaphysical treatises. The later development of theoretical gnosis in Persia, as well as the School of Transcendent Theosophy of Mullā Sadrā cannot be fully understood without consideration of Āmulī’s works.

The 8th/14th to the 10th/15th century marks a period of intense activity in the field of theoretical gnosis and the School of Ibn ‘Arabī in Persia. Commentaries upon the Fusūs continued to appear. The first in Persian was most likely that of Rukn al-Dīn Mas‘ūd Shīrāzī, known as Bāhā Ruknā (d. 769/1367).38 But there were many others by such figures as Tāj al-Dīn

Khwārazmī (d. circa 838/1435),39 Shāh Ni‘mat Allāh Walī, Ibn Turkah (d. 830/1437) and Jāmī, who in a sense brings this period to an end. This extensive activity in the domain of gnosis associated specifically with the School of Ibn ‘Arabī was in addition to the flowering of the Sufism of the School of Khurasan and Central Asia and profound gnostic teachings, mostly in poetic form, of figures such as ‘Attār and Rūmī on the one hand and the Kubrawiyyah School founded by Najm al-Dīn Kubrā on the other.

We can hardly overemphasize the importance of the Khurasānī and Central Asian Schools and their profound metaphysical teachings, but in this essay we shall not deal with them, being only concerned with ‘irfān-i nazarī in its association with the School of Ibn ‘Arabī.

Among the gnostic figures of this period, Sā’in al-Dīn ibn Turkah Isfahānī stands out as far as his later influence is concerned.

The author of many independent treatises on metaphysics and the traditional sciences, he also wrote a commentary upon the Fusūs

which became popular.40 But the work that made him one of the pillars of the School of theoretical gnosis in Persia during later centuries is his Tamhīd al-qawā‘id.41 This masterly treatment of the cycle of gnosis became a popular textbook for the teaching of the subject in Persia especially during the Qajar period and has remained so to this day as one sees in the extensive recension of it by the contemporary Persian philosopher and gnostic, ‘Abd Allāh Jawādī Āmulī.42

The figure, who was given the title of the “Seal of Persian Poets”, that is, ‘Abd al-Rahmān Jāmī from Herat, was also in a sense the seal of this period in the history of theoretical gnosis in Persia.

One of the greatest poets of the Persian language, he was also a master of Ibn ‘Arabian gnosis and in a sense synthesized within his works the two distinct currents of Islamic spirituality that flowed from Ibn ‘Arabī and Rūmī. Jāmī is the author of a number of commentaries upon the works of Ibn ‘Arabī such as the famous Naqd al-nusūs fī sharh naqsh al-fusūs.43 He also authored summaries of the teachings of this School in works already mentioned such as the Lawā’ih and Ashi‘‘at al-lama‘āt, both literary masterpieces which are used as texts for the teaching of ‘irfān to this day.44

The spread of Twelve-Imam Shi‘ism in Persia during the Safavid period transformed the scene as far as the study and teaching of ‘irfān was concerned. During the earlier part of Safavid rule, many Sufi orders flourished in Persia whereas from the 11th/17th century onward opposition grew against Sufism especially among the class of Shi‘ite scholars who henceforth chose to speak of ‘irfān rather than tasawwuf.45 Although other types of Sufi and gnostic writings appeared during this period by members of various Sufi orders such as the Dhahabīs and ‘irfān-i shī‘ī also flourished in certain circles, few new works on the subject of theoretical gnosis appeared during this period in comparison to the previous era. The main influence of the School of Ibn ‘Arabī came to be felt through the writings of Mullā Sadrā (d. 1050/1640/41), who was deeply influenced by Shaykh al-Akbar and quoted from him extensively in his Asfār and elsewhere.46

But technically speaking the School of Mullā Sadrā is associated with hikmat and not ‘irfān, although Mullā Sadrā was also a gnostic and deeply

versed in Ibn ‘Arabian teachings. But he integrated elements of this teaching into his al-hikmat al-muta‘āliyah (Transcendent Theosophy or Philosophy) and did not write separate treatises on pure gnosis in the manner of an Ibn ‘Arabī or Qūnawī. It is highly significant that Mullā Sadrā did not leave behind a commentary on the Fusūs like that of Kāshānī or Qaysarī nor write a treatise like Tamhīd al-qawā‘id although he was well acquainted with Ibn Turkah.

Nor do we find major works devoted purely to theoretical gnosis or ‘irfān-i nazarī by his students such as Fayd Kāshānī, who was also a gnostic, or Lāhījī. The School of ‘irfān-i nazarī certainly continued during the Safavid era but the major intellectual thrust of the period was in the creation of the School of Transcendent Theosophy, which had incorporated major theses of ‘irfān such as wahdat al-wujūd into its philosophical system, but which was distinct in the structure of its doctrines, manner of presentation and method of demonstration from ‘irfān. Furthermore, the subject of hikmat is “being conditioned by negation” (wujūd bi-shart-i lā) while the subject of ‘irfān is totally non-conditioned being (wujūd lā bi-shart).

In any case as far as Persia is concerned, one had to wait for the Qajar period to see a major revival of the teaching of ‘irfān-i nazarī and the appearance of important commentaries on classical texts of this tradition. This revival occurred along with the revivification of the teachings of the School of Mullā Sadrā and many masters of this period were both hakīm and ‘ārif, while ‘irfān continued to influence philosophy deeply. The first major figure to mention in the context of the School of ‘irfān during the Qajar period is Sayyid Radī Lārījānī (d. 1270/1853) who was a student of Mullā ‘Alī Nūrī in hikmat but we know less of his lineage in ‘irfān.47 He is said to have possessed exalted spiritual states and was given the title of “Possessor of the States of the Inner (bātin) World” by his contemporaries.48 We know that he taught the Fusūs and Tamhīd alqawā‘id in Isfahan and was considered as a saint as well as master of ‘irfān-i nazarī.

Sayyid Radī’s most important student was Āqā Muhammad Ridā Qumsha’ī (d. 1306/1888-9), whom many Persian experts on ‘irfān consider as a second Ibn ‘Arabī and the most prominent commentator upon gnostic texts such as the Fusūs since the time of Qūnawī. Āqā Muhammad Ridā studied in Isfahan but later migrated to Tehran which became henceforth perhaps the most important for the teaching of ‘irfān-i nazarī for many decades.49 There, he taught and trained numerous important students in both ‘irfān and hikmat.

He also wrote a number of important glosses and commentaries on such works as the Tamhīd al-qawā‘id and Qaysarī’s commentary on the Fusūs as well as some of the works of Mullā Sadrā, in addition to independent treatises. Like so many masters of ‘irfān-i nazarī, Āqā Muhammad Ridā was also a fine poet and composed poetry under the pen-name Sahbā. Unfortunately much of his poetry is lost. It is also of great significance to note that Āqā Muhammad Ridā emphasized the importance of spiritual practice and the need for a spiritual master.50

One of Āqā Muhammad Ridā’s important students was Mīrzā Hāshim Ashkiwarī Rashtī (d. 1332/1914), commentator upon Misbāhal-uns, who

took over the circle of instruction of ‘irfān in Tehran after Āqā Muhammad Ridā. He was in turn teacher of such famous hakīms and ‘ārifs of the past century as Mīrzā Mahdī Āshtiyānī d. 1362/1953), Mīrzā Ahmad Āshtiyānī (d. 1359/1940), Sayyid Muhammad Kāzim ‘Assār (d. 1396/1975) and Muhammad ‘Alī Shāhābādī (d. 1369/1951).51 The latter is particularly important not only for his own writings on gnosis including his Rashahāt al-bihār, but for being the master of Ayatollah Khomeini in ‘irfān-i nazarī, the person with whom the latter studied the Fusūs without the presence of any other student.52 Many of the ideas of Ayatollah Khomeini in his Ta‘līqāt, Sharh du‘ā-i sahar and Misbāh al-hidāyah ila’l-khilāfah wa’l-walāyah/wilāyah reflect the interpretations of Shāhābādī whom he revered highly.

The extensive political fame and influence of Ayatollah Rūh Allāh Khumaynī (Khomeini) (d. 1409/1989) has prevented many people in the West and even within the Islamic world to pay serious attention to his gnostic works,53 and his place in the long history of theoretical gnosis outlined in a summary fashion above. There is no doubt that he was attracted to the study of ‘irfān from an early age and in later years, while he also studied hikmat, not to speak of the transmitted sciences, his great love remained ‘irfān, although he was also a recognized master of the School of Mullā Sadrā.54 In his writings he combined the tradition of ‘irfān-i shī‘ī55 and that of Ibn ‘Arabī. For example his Sharh du‘ā-i sahar belongs to the world of Shi‘ite gnosis; the Ta‘līqāt ‘alā sharh fusūs il-hikam wa misbāh il-uns belong to the tradition of Ibn ‘Arabian gnosis as interpreted over the centuries by Shi‘ite gnostics and with many new insights into the understanding of these classical texts; and Misbāh al-hidāyah ila’lkhilāfah wa’l-walāyah/wilāyah represent a synthesis of the two schools of gnosis. Other mystical works of Ayatollah Khomeini such as Chihil hadīth, Sirr al-salāh, Ādāb al-salāh and Sharh-i hadīth-i junūd-i ‘aql wa jahl are also works of a gnostic and esoteric quality reminiscent of a Fayd Kāshānī or Qādī Sa‘īd Qummī and going back even earlier, classical Sufi works on such subjects, but they do not fall fully under the category of ‘irfān-i nazarī as we have defined it in this essay.56 Ayatollah Khomeini also composed poems of a mystical and gnostic nature.

For many it is interesting to note and might even appear as perplexing that although later in life he entered fully into the arena of politics, earlier in his life Ayatollah Khomeini was very much interested not only in theoretical gnosis but also in operative Sufism with its ascetic dimension and emphasis on detachment from the world. The key to this riddle should perhaps be sought first of all in the stages of man’s journeys (asfār) to God mentioned by Mullā Sadrā at the beginning of the Asfār, stages which include both the journey from creation (al-khalq) to God (al-Haqq) and return to creation with God and secondly in Ayatollah Khomeini’s understanding of the stages of this journey as they applied to him and to what he considered to be his mission in life. In any case although the later part of his life differed greatly outwardly from that of Āqā Muhammad Ridā, his early life was much like that of the figure whom he called “the master of our masters”. Also like Āqā

Muhammad Ridā, Ayatollah Khomeini was poetically gifted and deeply immersed in the tradition of Persian Sufi poetry.

There is need in the future to study more closely the relation between the contemplative and active dimensions of life in the case of Ayatollah Khomeini in relation to the teachings of ‘irfān, and more generally in the lives of several other major Muslim political figures of the 14th/20th century such as Hasan al-Bannā’, the founder of the Ikhwān al-muslimīn, and Mawlānā Mawdūdī, the founder of Jamā‘ati islāmī of Pakistan, both of whom were deeply immersed in politics while being earlier in life devoted in one way or another to Sufism. In the case of none of the major Muslim political figures of the 14th/20th century, however, is there such a close relationship with Sufism and ‘irfān as one finds in the case of Ayatollah Khomeini. Such matters raise issues of central concern for the understanding of the relation between Sufism and ‘irfān on the one hand and external political action on the other. These issues are not, however, our concern here.

What is important to note is that irrespective of his political views and actions, and his particular interpretation of walāyah/wilāyah, Ayatollah Khomeini remains an important figure in the long history of theoretical gnosis in the Islamic world.

The tradition of ‘irfān-i nazarī continues to this day in Persia.57 After the generation of such figures as Ayatollah Khomeini, ‘Allāmah Tabātabā’ī (d. 1404/1983), who was a major gnostic without writing any commentaries on Ibn ‘Arabī, and also one of the important masters of ‘irfān, Sayyid Muhammad Kāzim ‘Assār, notable figures have appeared upon the scene such as Sayyid Jalāl al-Dīn Āshtiyanī, Hasan-zādah Āmulī, and Jawād Āmulī, of whom the latter two still teach at Qom. Āshtiyanī’s commentary upon the introduction of Qaysarī to the Fusūs mentioned above, as well as a number of his other commentaries such as those on Tamhīd alqawā‘id and Naqd al-nusūs, are major contemporary texts of theoretical gnosis, while the recent commentary by Hasan-zādah Āmulī on the Fusūs entitled Mumidd al-himam dar sharh-i fusūs alhikam58 reveals the living nature of this School in Persia as does Jawād Āmulī’s recension of Tamhīd al-qawā‘id.

The Gospels

Introduction

Many readers of the Gospels are embarrassed and even abashed when they stop to think about the meaning of certain descriptions. The same is true when they make comparisons between different versions of the same event found in several Gospels. This observation is made by Father Roguet in his bookInitiation to the Gospels (Initiation à l'Evangile)[17] . With the wide experience he has gained in his many years of answering perturbed readers' letters in a Catholic weekly, he has been able to assess just how greatly they have been worried by what they have read. His questioners come from widely varying social and cultural backgrounds. He notes that their requests for explanations concern texts that are "considered abstruse, incomprehensible, if not contradictory, absurd or scandalous'. There can be no doubt that a complete reading of the Gospels is likely to disturb Christians profoundly.

This observation is very recent: Father Roguet's book was published in 1973. Not so very long ago, the majority of Christians knew only selected sections of the Gospels that were read during services or commented upon during sermons. With the exception of the Protestants, it was not customary for Christians to read the Gospels in their entirety. Books of religious instruction only contained extracts; thein extenso text hardly circulated at all. At a Roman Catholic school Ihad copies of the works of Virgil and Plato, but I did not have the New Testament. The Greek text of this would nevertheless have been very instructive: it was only much later on that I realized why they had not set us translations of the holy writings of Christianity. The latter could have led us to ask our teachers questions they would have found it difficult to answer.

These discoveries, made if one has a critical outlook during a readingin extens of the Gospels, have led the Church to come to the aid of readers by helping them overcome their perplexity. "Many Christians need to learn how to read the Gospels", notes Father Roguet. Whether or not one agrees with the explanations he gives, it is greatly to the author's credit that he actually tackles these delicate problems. Unfortunately, it is not always like this in many writings on the Christian Revelation.

In editions of the Bible produced for widespread publication, introductory notes more often than not set out a collection of ideas that would tend to persuade the reader that the Gospels hardly raise any problems concerning the personalities of the authors of the various books, the authenticity of the texts and the truth of the descriptions. In spite of the fact that there are so many unknowns concerning authors of whose identity we are not at all sure, we find a wealth of precise information in this kind of introductory note. Often they present as a certainty what is pure hypothesis, or they state that such-and-such an evangelist was an eye-witness of the events, while specialist works claim the opposite. The time that elapsed between the end of Jesus' ministry and the appearance of the texts is drastically reduced. They would have one believe that these were written by one man taken from an oral tradition, when in fact specialists have pointed out adaptations to the texts. Of course, certain difficulties of interpretation are mentioned here and there, but they ride rough shod over glaring contradictions that must strike anyone who thinks about them. In the little glossaries one finds among the appendices complementing a reassuring preface, one observes how improbabilities, contradictions or blatant errors have been hidden or stifled under clever arguments of an apologetic nature. This disturbing state of affairs shows up the misleading nature of such commentaries.

The ideas to be developed in the coming pages will without doubt leave any readers still unaware of these problems quite amazed. Before going into detail however, I will provide an immediate illustration of my ideas with an example that seems to me quite conclusive.

Neither Matthew nor John speaks of Jesus's Ascension. Luke in his Gospel places it on the day of the Resurrection and forty days later in the Acts of the Apostles of which he is said to be the author. Mark mentions it (without giving a date) in a conclusion considered unauthentic today. The Ascension therefore has no solid scriptural basis. Commentators nevertheless approach this important question with incredible lightness.

A. Tricot, in hisLittle Dictionary of the New Testament (Petit Dictionnaire du Nouveau Testament) in the Crampon Bible, (1960 edition)[18] , a work produced for mass publication, does not devote an entry to the Ascension.The Synopsis of the Four Gospels (Synopse des Quatre Evangiles) by Fathers Benoît and Boismard, teachers at the Biblical School of Jerusalem, (1972 edition)[19] , informs us in volume II, pages 451 and 452, that the contradiction between Luke's Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles may be explained by a 'literary artifice': this is, to say the least, difficult to follow ! .

In all probability, Father Roguet in hisInitiation to the Gospel , 1973, (pg. 187) has not been convinced by the above argument. The explanation he gives us is curious, to say the least:

'"Here, as in many similar cases, the problem only appears insuperable if one takes Biblical statements literally, and forgets their religious significance. It is not a matter of breaking down the factual reality into a symbolism which is inconsistent, but rather of looking for the theological intentions of those revealing these mysteries to us by providing us with facts we can apprehend with our senses and signs appropriate to our incarnate spirit."

How is it possible to be satisfied by an exegesis of this kind. Only a person who accepted everything unconditionally would find such apologetic set-phrases acceptable.

Another interesting aspect of Father Roguet's commentary is his admission that there are 'many similar cases'; similar, that is, to the Ascension in the Gospels. The problem therefore has to be approached as a whole, objectively and in depth. It would seem reasonable to look for an explanation by studying the conditions attendant upon the writing of the Gospels, or the religious atmosphere prevailing at the time. When adaptations of the original writings taken from oral traditions are pointed out, and we see the way texts handed down to us have been corrupted, the presence of obscure, incomprehensible, contradictory, improbable, and even absurd passages comes as much less of a surprise. The same may be said of texts which are incompatible with today's proven reality, thanks to scientific progress. Observations such as these denote the element of human participation in the writing and modification of the texts.

Admittedly, in the last few decades, objective research on the Scriptures has gained attention. In a recent book,Faith in the Resurrection, Resurrection of Faith [20] (Foi en la Resurrection, Resurrection de la foi), Father Kannengiesser, a professor at the Catholic Institute of Paris, outlines this profound change in the following terms: "The faithful are hardly aware that a revolution has taken place in methods of Biblical exegesis since the time of Pious XII"[21] . The 'Revolution' that the author mentions is therefore very recent. It is beginning to be extended to the teaching of the faithful, in the case of certain specialists at least, who are animated by this spirit of revival. "The overthrow of the most assured prospects of the pastoral tradition," the author writes, "has more or less begun with this revolution in methods of exegesis."

Father Kannengiesser warns that 'one should not take literally' facts reported about Jesus by the Gospels, because they are 'writings suited to an occasion' or 'to combat', whose authors 'are writing down the traditions of their own community about Jesus'. Concerning the Resurrection of Jesus, which is the subject of his book, he stresses that none of the authors of the Gospels can claim to have been an eye-witness. He intimates that, as far as the rest of Jesus's public life is concerned, the same must be true because, according to the Gospels, none of the Apostles-apart from Judas Iscariot-left Jesus from the moment he first followed Him until His last earthly manifestations.

We have come a long way from the traditional position, which was once again solemnly confirmed by the Second Vatican Council only ten years ago. This once again is resumed by modern works of popularization destined to be read by the faithful. Little by little the truth is coming to light however.

It is not easy to grasp, because the weight of such a bitterly defended tradition is very heavy indeed. To free oneself from it, one has to strike at the roots of the problem, i.e. examine first the circumstances that marked the birth of Christianity.

Historical Reminder Judeo-Christian and Saint Paul

The majority of Christians believe that the Gospels were writ ten by direct witnesses of the life of Jesus and therefore constitute unquestionable evidence concerning the events high-lighting His life and preachings. One wonders, in the presence of such guarantees of authenticity, how it is possible to discuss the teachings derived from them and how one can cast doubt upon the validity of the Church as an institution applying the general instructions Jesus Himself gave. Today's popular editions of the Gospels contain commentaries aimed at propagating these ideas among the general public.

The value the authors of the Gospels have as eye-witnesses is always presented to the faithful as axiomatic. In the middle of the Second century, Saint Justin did, after all, call the Gospels the 'Memoirs of the Apostles'. There are moreover so many details proclaimed concerning the authors that it is a wonder that one could ever doubt their accuracy. 'Matthew was a well-known character 'a customs officer employed at the tollgate or customs house at Capharnaum'; it is even said that he spoke Aramaic and Greek. Mark is also easily identifiable as Peter's colleague; there is no doubt that he too was an eye-witness. Luke is the 'dear physician' of whom Paul talks: information on him is very precise. John is the Apostle who was always near to Jesus, son of Zebedee, fisherman on the Sea of Galilee.

Modern studies on the beginnings of Christianity show that this way of presenting things hardly corresponds to reality. We shall see who the authors of the Gospels really were. As far as the decades following Jesus's mission are concerned, it must be understood that events did not at all happen in the way they have been said to have taken place and that Peter's arrival in Rome in no way laid the foundations for the Church. On the contrary, from the time Jesus left earth to the second half of the Second century, there was a struggle between two factions. One was what one might call Pauline Christianity and the other Judeo-Christianity. It was only very slowly that the first supplanted the second, and Pauline Christianity triumphed over Judeo-Christianity.

A large number of very recent works are based on contemporary discoveries about Christianity. Among them we find Cardinal Daniélou's name. In December 1967 he published an article in the review Studies (Etudes) entitled.'A New Representation of the Origins of Christianity: Judeo-Christianity'. (Une vision nouvelle des origines chrétiennes, le judéo-christianisme). Here he reviews past works, retraces its history and enables us to place the appearance of the Gospels in quite a different context from the one that emerges on reading accounts intended for mass publication. What follows is a condensed version of the essential points made in his article, including many quotations from it.

After Jesus's departure, the "little group of Apostles" formed a "Jewish sect that remained faithful to the form of worship practised in the Temple". However, when the observances of converts from paganism were added to them, a 'special system' was offered to them, as it were: the Council of Jerusalem in 49 A.D. exempted them from circumcision and Jewish observances; "many Judeo-Christians rejected this concession". This group was quite separate from Paul's. What is more, Paul and the Judeo-Christians were in conflict over the question of pagans who had turned to Christianity, (the incident of Antioch, 49 A.D.). "For Paul, the circumcision, Sabbath, and form of worship practised in the Temple were henceforth old fashioned, even for the Jews. Christianity was to free itself from its political-cum-religious adherence to Judaism and open itself to the Gentiles."

For those Judeo-Christians who remained 'loyal Jews,' Paul was a traitor. Judeo-Christian documents call him an 'enemy', accuse him of 'tactical double-dealing', . '"Until 70 A.D., Judeo-Christianity represents the majority of the Church" and "Paul remains an isolated case". The head of the community at that time was James, a relation of Jesus. With him were Peter (at the beginning) and John. "James may be considered to represent the Judeo-Christian camp, which deliberately clung to Judaism as opposed to Pauline Christianity." Jesus's family has a very important place in the Judeo-Christian Church of Jerusalem. "James's successor was Simeon, son of Cleopas, a cousin of the Lord".

Cardinal Danielou here quotes Judeo-Christian writings which express the views on Jesus of this community which initially formed around the apostles: the Gospel of the Hebrews (coming from a Judeo-Christian community in Egypt), the writings of Clement: Homilies and Recognitions, 'Hypotyposeis', the Second Apocalypse of James, the Gospel of Thomas.[22] "It is to the Judeo-Christians that one must ascribe the oldest writings of Christian literature." Cardinal Daniélou mentions them in detail.

"It was not just in Jerusalem and Palestine that Judeo-Christianity predominated during the first hundred years of the Church. The Judeo-Christian mission seems everywhere to have developed before the Pauline mission. This is certainly the explanation of the fact that the letters of Paul allude to a conflict." They were the same adversaries he was to meet everywhere: in Galatia, Corinth, Colossae, Rome and Antioch.

The Syro-Palestinian coast from Gaza to Antioch was Judeo-Christian '"as witnessed by the Acts of the Apostles and Clementine writings". In Asia Minor, the existence of Judeo-Christians is indicated in Paul's letters to the Galatians and Colossians. Papias's writings give us information about Judeo-Christianity in Phrygia. In Greece, Paul's first letter to the Corinthians mentions Judeo-Christians, especially at Apollos. According to Clement's letter and the Shepherd of Hermas, Rome was an 'important centre'. For Suetonius and Tacitus, the Christians represented a Jewish sect. Cardinal Daniélou thinks that the first evangelization in Africa was Judeo-Christian. The Gospel of the Hebrews and the writings of Clement of Alexandria link up with this.

It is essential to know these facts to understand the struggle between communities that formed the background against which the Gospels were written. The texts that we have today, after many adaptations from the sources, began to appear around 70 A.D., the time when the two rival communities were engaged in a fierce struggle, with the Judeo-Christians still retaining the upper hand. With the Jewish war and the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. the situation was to be reversed. This is how Cardinal Daniélou explains the decline:

"After the Jews had been discredited in the Empire, the Christians tended to detach themselves from them. The Hellenistic peoples of Christian persuasion then gained the upper hand. Paul won a posthumous victory. Christianity separated itself politically and sociologically from Judaism; it became the third people. All the same, until the Jewish revolt in 140 A.D., Judeo-Christianity continued to predominate culturally"

From 70 A.D. to a period sometime before 110 A.D. the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were produced. They do not constitute the first written Christian documents: the letters of Paul date from well before them. According to O. Culmann, Paul probably wrote his letter to the Thessalonians in 50 A.D. He had probably disappeared several years prior to the completion of Mark's Gospel.

Paul is the most controversial figure in Christianity. He was considered to be a traitor to Jesus's thought by the latter's family and by the apostles who had stayed in Jerusalem in the circle around James. Paul created Christianity at the expense of those whom Jesus had gathered around him to spread his teachings. He had not known Jesus during his lifetime and he proved the legitimacy of his mission by declaring that Jesus, raised from the dead, had appeared to him on the road to Damascus. It is quite reasonable to ask what Christianity might have been without Paul and one could no doubt construct all sorts of hypotheses on this subject. As far as the Gospels are concerned however, it is almost certain that if this atmosphere of struggle between communities had not existed, we would not have had the writings we possess today. They appeared at a time of fierce struggle between the two communities. These 'combat writings', as Father Kannengiesser calls them, emerged from the multitude of writings on Jesus. These occurred at the time when Paul's style of Christianity won through definitively, and created its own collection of official texts. These texts constituted the 'Canon' which condemned and excluded as unorthodox any other documents that were not suited to the line adopted by the Church.

The Judeo-Christians have now disappeared as a community with any influence, but one still hears people talking about them under the general term of 'Judaïstic'. This is how Cardinal Daniélou describes their disappearance:

"When they were cut off -from the Great Church, that gradually freed itself from its Jewish attachments, they petered out very quickly in the West. In the East however it is possible to find traces of them in the Third and Fourth Centuries A.D., especially in Palestine, Arabia, Transjordania, Syria and Mesopotamia. Others joined in the orthodoxy of the Great Church, at the same time preserving traces of Semitic culture; some of these still persist in the Churches of Ethiopia and Chaldea".

The Four Gospels: Sources and History

In the writings that come from the early stages of Christianity, the Gospels are not mentioned until long after the works of Paul. It was not until the middle of the Second century A.D., after 140 A.D. to be precise, that accounts began to appear concerning a collection of Evangelic writings, In spite of this, "from the beginning of the Second century A.D., many Christian authors clearly intimate that they knew a. great many of Paul's letters." These observations are set out in the Introduction to theEcumenical Translation of the Bible, New Testament (Introduction à la Traduction oecuménique de la Bible, Nouveau Testament) edited 1972[23] . They are worth mentioning from the outset, and it is useful to point out here that the work referred to is the result of a collective effort which brought together more than one hundred Catholic and Protestant specialists.

The Gospels, later to become official, i.e. canonic, did not become known until fairly late, even though they were completed at the beginning of the Second century A.D. According to the Ecumenical Translation, stories belonging to them began to be quoted around the middle of the Second century A.D. Nevertheless, "it is nearly always difficult to decide whether the quotations come from written texts that the authors had next to them or if the latter were content to evoke the memory of fragments of the oral tradition."

"Before 140 A.D." we read in the commentaries this translation of the Bible contains, "there was, in any case, no account by which one might have recognised a collection of evangelic writings". This statement is the opposite of what A. Tricot writes (1960) in the commentary to his translation of the New Testament: "Very early on, from the beginning of the Second century A.D., it became a habit to say "Gospel' meaning the books that Saint Justin around 150 A.D. had also called "The Memoirs of the Apostles'." Unfortunately, assertions of this kind are sufficiently common for the public to have ideas on the date of the Gospels which are mistaken.

The Gospels did not form a complete whole 'very early on'; it did not happen until more than a century after the end of Jesus's mission.The Ecumenical Translation of the Bible estimates the date the four Gospels acquired the status of canonic literature at around 170 A.D.

Justin's statement which calls the authors 'Apostles' is not acceptable either, as we shall see.

As far as the date the Gospels were written is concerned, A. Tricot states that Matthew's, Mark's and Luke's Gospels were written before 70 A.D.: but this is not acceptable, except perhaps for Mark. Following many others, this commentator goes out of his way to present the authors of the Gospels as the apostles or the companions of Jesus. For this reason he suggests dates of writing that place them very near to the time Jesus lived. As for John, whom A. Tricot has us believe lived until roughly 100 A.D., Christians have always been used to seeing him depicted as being very near to Jesus on ceremonial occasions. It is very difficult however to assert that he is the author of the Gospel that bears his name. For A. Tricot, as for other commentators, the Apostle John (like Matthew) was the officially qualified witness of the facts he recounts, although the majority of critics do not support the hypothesis which says he wrote the fourth Gospel.

If however the four Gospels in question cannot reasonably be regarded as the 'Memoirs' of the apostles or companions of Jesus, where do they come from?

24. Pub. Presses Universitaires de France, Paris, 1967

Culmann, in his bookThe New Testament (Le Nouveau Testament)[24] , says of this that the evangelists were only the "spokesmen of the early Christian community which wrote
down the oral tradition. For thirty or forty years, the Gospel had existed as an almost exclusively oral tradition: the latter only transmitted sayings and isolated narratives. The evangelists strung them together, each in his own way according to his own character and theological preoccupations. They linked up the narrations and sayings handed down by the prevailing tradition. The grouping of Jesus's sayings and likewise the sequence of narratives is made by the use of fairly vague linking phrases such as 'after this', 'when he had' etc. In other words, the 'framework' of the Synoptic Gospels[25] is of a purely literary order and is not based on history."

The same author continues as follows:

"It must be noted that the needs of preaching, worship and teaching, more than biographical considerations, were what guided the early community when it wrote down the tradition of the life of Jesus. The apostles illustrated the truth of the faith they were preaching by describing the events in the life of Jesus. Their sermons are what caused the descriptions to be written down. The sayings of Jesus were transmitted, in particular, in the teaching of the catechism of the early Church."

This is exactly how the commentators of theEcumenical Translation of the Bible (Traduction oecuménique de la Bible) describe the writing of the Gospels: the formation of an oral tradition influenced by the preachings of Jesus's disciples and other preachers; the preservation by preaching of this material, which is in actual fact found in the Gospels, by preaching, liturgy, and teaching of the faithful; the slender possibility of a concrete form given by writings to certain confessions of faith, sayings of Jesus, descriptions of the Passion for example; the fact that the evangelists resort to various written forms as well as data contained in the oral tradition. They resort to these to produce texts which "are suitable for various circles, which meet the needs of the Church, explain observations on the Scriptures, correct errors and even, on occasion, answer adversaries' objections. Thus the evangelists, each according to his own outlook, have collected and recorded in writing the material given to them by the oral tradition".

This position has been collectively adopted by more than one hundred experts in the exegesis of the New Testament, both Catholic and Protestant. It diverges widely from the line established by the Second Vatican Council in its dogmatic constitution on the Revelation drawn up between 1962 and 1965. This conciliar document has already been referred to once above, when talking of the Old Testament. The Council was able to declare of the latter that the books which compose it "contain material which is imperfect and obsolete", but it has not expressed the same reservations about the Gospels. On the contrary, as we read in the following.

"Nobody can overlook the fact that, among all the Scriptures, even those of the New Testament, the Gospels have a well-deserved position of superiority. This is by virtue of the fact that they represent the most pre-eminent witness to the life and teachings of the Incarnate Word, Our Saviour. At all times and in all places the Church has maintained and still maintains the apostolic origin of the four Gospels. What the apostles actually preached on Christ's orders, both they and the men in their following subsequently transmitted, with the divine inspiration of the Spirit, in writings which are the foundation of the faith, i.e. the fourfold Gospel according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John."

"Our Holy Mother, the Church, has firmly maintained and still maintains with the greatest constancy, that these four Gospels, which it unhesitatingly confirms are historically authentic, faithfully transmit what Jesus, Son Of God, actually did and taught during his life among men for their eternal salvation until the day when He was taken up into the heavens. . The sacred authors therefore composed the four Gospels in such a way as to always give us true and frank information on the life of Jesus".

This is an unambiguous affirmation of the fidelity with which the Gospels transmit the acts and sayings of Jesus.

There is hardly any compatibility between the Council's affirmation and what the authors quoted above claim. In particular the following:

The Gospels"are not to be taken literally" they are"writings suited to an occasion" or"combat writings" . Their authors"are writing down the traditions of their own community concerning Jesus". (Father Kannengiesser).

The Gospels are texts which "are suitable for various circles, meet the needs of the Church, explain observations on the Scriptures, correct errors and even, on occasion, answer adversaries' objections. Thus, the evangelists, each according to his own outlook, have collected and recorded in writing the material given to them by the oral tradition". (Ecumenical Translation of the Bible ).

It is quite clear that we are here faced with contradictory statements: the declaration of the Council on the one hand, and more recently adopted attitudes on the other. According to the declaration of the Second Vatican Council, a faithful account of the actions and words of Jesus is to be found in the Gospels; but it is impossible to reconcile this with the existence in the text of contradictions, improbabilities, things which are materially impossible or statements which run contrary to firmly established reality.

If, on the other hand, one chooses to regard the Gospels as expressing the personal point of view of those who collected the oral traditions that belonged to various communities, or as writings suited to an occasion or combat-writings, it does not come as a surprise to find faults in the Gospels. All these faults are the sign that they were written by men in circumstances such as these. The writers may have been quite sincere, even though they relate facts without doubting their inaccuracy. They provide us with descriptions which contradict other authors' narrations, or are influenced by reasons of religious rivalry between communities. They therefore present stories about the life of Jesus from a completely different angle than their adversaries.

It has already been shown how the historical context is in harmony with the second approach to the Gospels. The data we have on the texts themselves definitively confirms it.

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW

Matthew's is the first of the four Gospels as they appear in the New Testament. This position is perfectly justified by the fact that it is a prolongation, as it were, of the Old Testament. It was written to show that "Jesus fulfilled the history of Israel", as the commentators of theEcumenical Translation of the Bible note and on which we shall be drawing heavily. To do BO, Matthew constantly refers to quotations from the Old Testament which show how Jesus acted as if he were the Messiah the Jews were awaiting.

This Gospel begins with a genealogy of Jesus[26] . Matthew traces it back to Abraham via David. We shall presently see the fault in the text that most commentators silently ignore. Matthew's obvious intention was nevertheless to indicate the general tenor of his work straight away by establishing this line of descendants. The author continues the same line of thought by constantly bringing to the forefront Jesus's attitude toward Jewish law, the main principles of which (praying, fasting, and dispensing charity) are summarized here.

Jesus addresses His teachings first and foremost to His own people. This is how He speaks to the twelve Apostles "go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans[27] but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." (Matthew 10, 5-6). "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel". (Matthew 15, 24). At the end of his Gospel, in second place, Matthew extends the apostolic mission of Jesus's first disciples to all nations. He makes Jesus give the following order. "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations" (Matthew 28, 19), but the primary destination must be the 'house of Israel'. A.

Tricot says of this Gospel, "Beneath its Greek garb, the flesh and bones of this book are Jewish, and so is its spirit; it has a Jewish feel and bears its distinctive signs".

On the basis of these observations alone, the origins of Matthew's Gospel may be placed in the tradition of a Judeo-Christian community. According to O. Culmann, this community "was trying to break away from Judaism while at the same time preserving the continuity of the Old Testament. The main preoccupations and the general tenor of this Gospel point towards a strained situation."

There are also political factors to be found in the text. The Roman occupation of Palestine naturally heightened the desire of this country to see itself liberated. They prayed for God to intervene in favour of the people He had chosen among all others, and as their omnipotent sovereign who could give direct support to the affairs of men, as He had already done many times in the course of history.

What sort of person was Matthew? Let us say straight away that he is no longer acknowledged to be one of Jesus's companions. A. Tricot nevertheless presents him as such in his commentary to the translation of the New Testament, 1960: "Matthew alias, Levi, was a customs officer employed at the tollgate or customs house at Capharnaum when Jesus called him to be one of His disciples." This is the opinion of the Fathers of the Church, Origen, Jerome and Epiphanes. This opinion is no longer held today. One point which is uncontested is that the author is writing "for people who speak Greek, but nevertheless know Jewish customs and the Aramaic language."

It would seem that for the commentators of the Ecumenical Translation, the origins of this Gospel are as follows:

"It is normally considered to have been written in Syria, perhaps at Antioch (. .), or in Phoenicia, because a great many Jews lived in these countries.[28] (. .) we have indications of a polemic against the orthodox Judaism of the Synagogue and the Pharasees such as was manifested at the synagogal assembly at Jamina circa 80 A.D." In such conditions, there are many authors who date the first of the Gospels at about 80-90 A.D., perhaps also a little earlier. it is not possible to be absolutely definite about this . since we do not know the author's exact name, we must be satisfied with a few outlines traced in the Gospel itself. the author can be recognized by his profession. He is well-versed in Jewish writings and traditions. He knows, respects, but vigorously challenges the religious leaders of his people. He is a past master in the art of teaching and making Jesus understandable to his listeners. He always insists on the practical consequences of his teachings. He would fit fairly well the description of an educated Jew turned Christian; a householder "who brings out of his treasure what is new and what is old" as Matthew says (13,52). This is a long way from the civil servant at Capharnaum, whom Mark and Luke call Levi, and who had become one of the twelve Apostles .

Everyone agrees in thinking that Matthew wrote his Gospel using the same sources as Mark and Luke. His narration is, as we shall see, different on several essential points. In spite of this, Matthew borrowed heavily from Mark's Gospel although the latter was not one of Jesus's disciples (O. Culmann).

Matthew takes very serious liberties with the text. We shall see this when we discuss the Old Testament in relation to the genealogy of Jesus which is placed at the beginning of his Gospel.

He inserts into his book descriptions which are quite literally incredible. This is the adjective used in the work mentioned above by Father Kannengiesser referring to an episode in the Resurrection. the episode of the guard. He points out the improbability of the story referring to military guards at the tomb, "these Gentile soldiers" who "report, not to their hierarchical superiors, but to the high priests who pay them to tell lies". He adds however: "One must not laugh at him because Matthew's intention was extremely serious. In his own way he incorporates ancient data from the oral tradition into his written work. The scenario is nevertheless worthy ofJesus Christ Superstar .[29] "

Let us not forget that this opinion on Matthew comes from an eminent theologian teaching at the Catholic Institute of Paris (Institut Catholique de Paris).

Matthew relates in his narration the events accompanying the death of Jesus. They are another example of his imagination.

"And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom; and the earth shook, and the rocks were split; the tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many."

This passage from Matthew (27, 51-53) has no corresponding passage in the other Gospels. It is difficult to see how the bodies of the saints in question could have raised from the deadat the time of Jesus's death (according to the Gospels it was on the eve of the Sabbath) and only emerge from their tombsafter his resurrection (according to the same sources on the day after the Sabbath).

The most notable improbability is perhaps to be found in Matthew. It is the most difficult to rationalize of all that the Gospel authors claim Jesus said. He relates in chapter 12, 38-40 the episode concerning Jonah's sign:

Jesus was among the scribes and pharisees who addressed him in the following terms:

"Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you. But he answered them, "An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign; but no sign shall be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."

Jesus therefore proclaims that he will stay in the earth three days and three nights. So Matthew, along with Luke and Mark, place the death and burial of Jesus on the eve of the Sabbath. This, of course, makes the time spent in the earth three days (treis êmeras in the Greek text), but this period can only include two and not three nights (treis nuktas in the Greek text[30] ).

Gospel commentators frequently ignore this episode. Father Roguet nevertheless points out this improbability when he notes that Jesus "only stayed in the tomb" three days (one of them complete) and two nights. He adds however that "it is a set expression and really means three days". It is disturbing to see commentators reduced to using arguments that do not contain any positive meaning. It would be much more satisfying intellectually to say that a gross error such as this was the result of a scribe's mistake!

Apart from these improbabilities, what mostly distinguishes Matthew's Gospel is that it is the work of a Judeo-Christian community in the process of breaking away from Judaism while remaining in line with the Old Testament. From the point of view of Judeo-Christian history it is very important.

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK

This is the shortest of the four Gospels. It is also the oldest, but in spite of this it is not a book written by an apostle. At best it was written by an apostle's disciple.

O. Culmann has written that he does not consider Mark to be a disciple of Jesus. The author nevertheless points out, to those who have misgivings about the ascription of this Gospel to the Apostle Mark, that "Matthew and Luke would not have used this Gospel in the way they did had they not known that it was indeed based on the teachings of an apostle". This argument is in no way decisive. O. Culmann backs up the reservations he expresses by saying that he frequently quotes from the New Testament the sayings of a certain 'John nicknamed Mark'. These quotations. do not however mention the name of a Gospel author, and the text of Mark itself does not name any author.

The paucity of information on this point has led commentators to dwell on details that seem rather extravagant: using the pretext, for example, that Mark was the only evangelist to relate in his description of the Passion the story of the young man who had nothing but a linen cloth about his body and, when seized, left the linen cloth and ran away naked
(Mark 14, 51-52), they conclude that the young man must have been Mark, "the faithful disciple who tried to follow the teacher" (Ecumenical Translation). Other commentators see in this "personal memory a sign of authenticity, an anonymous signature", which "proves that he was an eyewitness" (O. Culmann).

O. Culmann considers that "many turns of phrase corroborate the hypothesis that the author was of Jewish origin," but the presence of Latin expressions might suggest that he had written his Gospel in Rome. "He addresses himself moreover to Christians not living in Palestine and is careful to explain the Aramic expressions he uses."

Tradition has indeed tended to see Mark as Peter's companion in Rome. It is founded on the final section of Peter's first letter (always supposing that he was indeed the author) Peter wrote in his letter. "The community which is at Babylon, which is likewise chosen, sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark." "By Babylon, what is probably meant is Rome" we read in the commentary to the Ecumenical Translation. From this, the commentators then imagine themselves authorized to conclude that Mark, who was supposed to have been with Peter in Rome, was the Evangelist . .One wonders whether it was not the same line of reasoning that led Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis in circa 150 A.D., to ascribe this Gospel to Mark as 'Peter's interpreter' and the possible collaborator of Paul.

Seen from this point of view, the composition of Mark's Gospel could be placed after Peter's death, i.e. at between 65 and 70 A.D. for the Ecumenical Translation and circa 70 A.D. for O. Culmann.

The text itself unquestionably reveals a major flaw. it is written with a total disregard to chronology. Mark therefore places, at the beginning of his narration (1, 16-20), the episode of the four fishermen whom Jesus leads to follow him by simply saying "I will make you become fishers of men", though they do not even know Him. The evangelist shows, among other things, a complete lack of plausibility.

As Father Roguet has said, Mark is 'a clumsy writer', 'the weakest of all the evangelists'; he hardly knows how to write a narrative. The commentator reinforces his observation by quoting a passage about how the twelve Apostles were selected.

Here is the literal translation:

"And he went up into the hills, and called to him those whom he desired; and they came to him. And he made that the twelve were to be with him, and to be sent out to preach and have authority to cast out demons; and he made the twelve and imposed the name Simon on Peter" (Mark, 3, 13-16).

He contradicts Matthew and Luke, as has already been noted above, with regard to the sign of Jonah. On the subject of signs given by Jesus to men in the course of His mission Mark (8, 11-13) describes an episode that is hardly credible:

"The Pharisees came and began to argue with him, seeking from him a sign from heaven, to test him. And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and said, 'Why does this generation seek a sign? Truly, I say to you, no sign shall be given to this generation.' And he left them, and getting into the boat again he departed to the other side."

There can be no doubt that this is an affirmation coming from Jesus Himself about his intention not to commit any act which might appear supernatural. Therefore the commentators of the Ecumenical Translation, who are surprised that Luke says Jesus will only give one sign (the sign of Jonah; see Matthew's Gospel) , consider it 'paradoxical' that Mark should say "no sign shall be given to this generation" seeing, as they note, the "miracles that Jesus himself gives as a sign" (Luke 7,22 and 11,20).

Mark's Gospel as a whole is officially recognised as being canonic. All the same, the final section of Mark's Gospel (16,1920) is considered by modem authors to have been tacked on to the basic work: the Ecumenical Translation is quite explicit about this.

This final section is not contained in the two oldest complete manuscripts of the Gospels, theCodex Vaticanus and theCodex Sinaiticus that date from the Fourth century A.D. O. Culmann notes on this subject that: "More recent Greek manuscripts and certain versions at this point added a conclusion on appearances which is not drawn from Mark but from the other Gospels." In fact, the versions of this added ending are very numerous. In the texts there are long and short versions (both are reproduced in the Bible, Revised Standard Version, 1952). Sometimes the long version has some additional material.

Father Kannengiesser makes the following comments on the ending. "The last verses must have been surpressed when his work was officially received (or the popular version of it) in the community that guaranteed its validity. Neither Matthew, Luke or afortiori John saw the missing section. Nevertheless, the gap was unacceptable. A long time afterwards, when the writings of Matthew, Luke and John, all of them similar, had been in circulation, a worthy ending to Mark was composed. Its elements were taken from sources throughout the other Gospels. It would be easy to recognise the pieces of the puzzle by enumerating Mark (16,9-20). One would gain a more concrete idea of the free way in which the literary genre of the evangelic narration was handled until the beginnings of the Second century A.D."

What a blunt admission is provided for us here, in the thoughts of a great theologian, that human manipulation exists in the texts of the Scriptures!

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO LUKE

For O. Culmann, Luke is a 'chronicler', and for Father Kannengiesser he is a 'true novelist'. In his prologue to Theophilus, Luke warns us that he, in his turn, following on from others who have written accounts concerning Jesus, is going to write a narrative of the same facts using the accounts and information of eyewitnesses-implying that he himself is not one-including information from the apostles' preachings. It is therefore to be a methodical piece of work which he introduces in the following terms:

"Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having informed myself about all things from their beginnings, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the truth concerning things of which you have been informed."

From the very first line one can see all that separates Luke from the 'scribbler' Mark to whose work we have just referred. Luke's Gospel is incontestably a literary work written in classical Greek free from any barbarisms.

Luke was a cultivated Gentile convert to Christianity. His attitude towards the Jews is immediately apparent. As O. Culmann points out, Luke leaves out Mark's most Judaic verses and highlights the Jews' incredulity at Jesus's words, throwing into relief his good relations with the Samaritans, whom the Jews detested. Matthew, on the other hand, has Jesus ask the apostles to flee from them. This is just one of many striking examples of the fact that the evangelists make Jesus say whatever suits their own personal outlook. They probably do so with sincere conviction. They give us the version of Jesus's words that is adapted to the point of view of their own community. How can one deny in the face of such evidence that the Gospels are 'combat writings' or 'writings suited to an occasion', as has been mentioned already? The comparison between the general tone of Luke's Gospel and Matthew's is in this respect a good demonstration.

Who was Luke? An attempt has been made to identify him with the physician of the same name referred to by Paul in several of his letters. The Ecumenical Translation notes that "several commentators have found the medical occupation of the author of this Gospel confirmed by the precision with which he describes the sick". This assessment is in fact exaggerated out of all proportion. Luke does not properly speaking 'describe' things of this kind; "the vocabulary he uses is that of a cultivated man of his time". There was a Luke who was Paul's travelling companion, but was he the same person? O. Culmann thinks he was.

The date of Luke's Gospel can be estimated according to several factors: Luke used Mark's and Matthew's Gospels. From what we read in the Ecumenical Translation, it seems that he witnessed the siege and destruction of Jerusalem by Titus's armies in 70 A.D. The Gospel probably dates from after this time. Present-day critics situate the time it was written at .circa 80-90 A.D., but several place it at an even earlier date.

The various narrations in Luke show important differences when compared to his predecessors. An outline of this has already been given. The Ecumenical Translation indicates them on pages 181 et sec. O. Culmann, in his book, The New Testament (Le Nouveau Testament) page 18, cites descriptions in Luke's Gospel that are not to be found anywhere else. And they are not about minor points of detail.

The descriptions of Jesus's childhood are unique to Luke's Gospel. Matthew describes Jesus's childhood differently from Luke, and Mark does not mention it at all.

Matthew and Luke both provide different genealogies of Jesus: the contradictions are so large and the improbabilities so great, from a scientific point of view, that a special chapter of this book has been devoted to the subject. It is possible to explain why Matthew, who was addressing himself to Jews, should begin the genealogy at Abraham, and include David in it, and that Luke, as a converted Gentile, should want to go back even farther. We shall see however that the two genealogies contradict each other from David onwards.

Jesus's mission is described differently on many points by Luke, Matthew and Mark.

An event of such great importance to Christians as the institution of the Eucharist gives rise to variations between Luke and the other two evangelists.[31] Father Roguet notes in his bookInitiation to the Gospel (Initiation à l'Evangile) page 75, that the words used to institute the Eucharist are reported by Luke (22,19-24) in a form very different from the wording in Matthew (26,26-29) and in Mark (14,22-24) which is almost identical.

"On the contrary" he writes, "the wording transmitted by Luke is very similar to that evoked by Saint Paul" (First Letter to the Corinthians, 11,23-25) .

As we have seen, in his Gospel, Luke expresses ideas on the subject of Jesus's Ascension which contradict what he says in the Acts of the Apostles. He is recognized as their author and they form an integral part of the New Testament. In his Gospel he situates the Ascension on Easter Day, and in the Acts forty days later. We already know to what strange commentaries this contradiction has led Christian experts in exegesis.

Commentators wishing to be objective, such as those of the Ecumenical Translation of the Bible, have been obliged to recognise as a general rule the fact that for Luke "the main preoccupation was not to write facts corresponding to material accuracy". When Father Kannengiesser compares the descriptions in the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke himself with the description of similar facts on Jesus raised from the dead by Paul, he pronounces the following opinion on Luke: "Luke is the most sensitive and literary of the four evangelists, he has all the qualities of a true novelist".

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN

John's Gospel is radically different from the three others; to such an extent indeed that Father Roguet in his bookInitiation to the Gospel (Initiation à l'Evangile), having commented on the other three, immediately evokes a startling image for the fourth. He calls it , different world'. It is indeed a unique book; different in the arrangement and choice of subject, description and speech; different in its style, geography, chronology; there are even differences in theological outlook (O. Culmann). Jesus's words are therefore differently recorded by John from the other evangelists: Father Roguet notes on this that whereas the synoptics record Jesus's words in a style that is "striking, much nearer to the oral style", in John all is meditation; to such an extent indeed that "one sometimes wonders if Jesus is still speaking or whether His ideas have not imperceptibly been extended by the Evangelist's own thoughts".

Who was the author? This is a highly debated question and extremely varying opinions have been expressed on this subject.

A. Tricot and Father Roguet belong to a camp that does not have the slightest misgivings: John's Gospel is the work of an eyewitness, its author is John, son of Zebedee and brother of James. Many details are known about this apostle and are set out in works for mass publication. Popular iconography puts him near Jesus, as in the Last Supper prior to the Passion. Who could imagine that John's Gospel was not the work of John the Apostle whose figure is so familiar?

The fact that the fourth Gospel was written so late is not a serious argument against this opinion. The definitive version was probably written around the end of the First century A.D. To situate the time it was written at sixty years after Jesus would be in keeping with an apostle who was very young at the time of Jesus and who lived to be almost a hundred.

Father Kannengiesser, in his study on the Resurrection, arrives at the conclusion that none of the New Testament authors, save Paul, can claim to have been eyewitnesses to Jesus's Resurrection. John nevertheless related the appearance to a number of the assembled apostles, of which he was probably a member, in the absence of Thomas (20,19-24), then eight days later to the full group of apostles (20,25-29).

O. Culmann in his workThe New Testament does not subscribe to this view.

TheEcumenical Translation of the Bible states that the majority of critics do not accept the hypothesis that the Gospel was written by John, although this possibility cannot be entirely ruled out. Everything points however towards the fact that the text we know today had several authors: "It is probable that the Gospel as it stands today was put into circulation by the author's disciples who added chapter 21 and very likely several annotations (i.e. 4,2 and perhaps 4,1; 4,44; 7,37b; 11,2; 19,35). With regard to the story of the adulterous woman (7,53-8,11), everyone agrees that it is a fragment of unknown origin inserted later (but nevertheless belonging to canonic Scripture)". Passage 19,35 appears as a 'signature' of an 'eyewitness' (O. Culmann), the only explicit signature in the whole of John's Gospel; but commentators believe that it was probably added later.

O. Culmann thinks that latter additions are obvious in this Gospel; such as chapter 21 which is probably the work of a "disciple who may well have made slight alterations to the main body of the Gospel".

It is not necessary to mention all the hypotheses suggested by experts in exegesis. The remarks recorded here made by the most eminent Christian writers on the questions of the authorship of the fourth Gospel are sufficient to show the extent of the confusion reigning on the subject of its authorship.

The historical value of John's stories has been contested to a great extent. The discrepancy between them and the other three Gospels is quite blatant. O. Culman offers an explanation for this; he sees in John a different theological point of view from the other evangelists. This aim "directs the choice of stories from the Logia[32] recorded, as well as the way in which they are reproduced . Thus the author often prolongs the lines and makes the historical Jesus say what the Holy Spirit Itself revealed to Him". This, for the exegete in question, is the reason for the discrepancies.

It is of course quite conceivable that John, who was writing after the other evangelists, should have chosen certain stories suitable for illustrating his own theories. One should not be surprised by the fact that certain descriptions contained in the other Gospels are missing in John. TheEcumenical Translation picks out a certain number of such instances (page 282). Certain gaps hardly seem credible however, like the fact that the Institution of the Eucharist is not described. It is unthinkable that an episode so basic to Christianity, one indeed that was to be the mainstay of its liturgy, i.e. the mass, should not be mentioned by John, the most pre-eminently meditative evangelist. The fact is, he limits himself, in the narrative of the supper prior to the Passion, to simply describing the washing of the disciples' feet, the prediction of Judas's betrayal and Peter's denial.

In contrast to this, there are stories which are unique to John and not present in the other three. The Ecumenical Translation mentions these (page 283). Here again, one could infer that the three authors did not see the importance in these episodes that John saw in them. It is difficult however not to be taken aback when one finds in John a description of the appearance of Jesusraised from the dead to his disciples beside the Sea of Tiberias (John 21,1-14). The description is nothing less than the reproduction (with numerous added details) of the miracle catch of fish which Luke (5,1-11) presents as an episode that occurredduring Jesus's life . In his description Luke alludes to the presence of the Apostle John who, as tradition has it, was the evangelist, Since this description in John's Gospel forms part of chapter 21, agreed to be a later addition, one can easily imagine that the reference to John's name in Luke could have led to its artificial inclusion in the fourth Gospel. The necessity of transforming a description from Jesus's life to a posthumous description in no way prevented the evangelical text from being manipulated.

Another important point on which John's Gospel differs from the other three is in the duration of Jesus's mission. Mark, Matthew and Luke place it over a period of one year. John spreads it over two years. O. Culmann notes this fact. On this subject the Ecumenical Translation expresses the following .

"The synoptics describe a long period in Galilee followed by a march that was more or less prolonged towards Judea, and finally a brief stay in Jerusalem. John, on the other hand, describes frequent journeys from one area to another and mentions a long stay in Judea, especially in Jerusalem (1,19-51; 2,13-3,36; 5,1-47; 14,20-31). He mentions several Passover celebrations (2,13; 5,1; 6,4; 11,55) and thus suggests a ministry that lasted more than two years".

Which one of them should one believe-Mark, Matthew, Luke or John?

SOURCES OF THE GOSPELS

The general outline that has been given here of the Gospels and which emerges from a critical examination of the texts tends to make one think of a literature which is "disjointed, with a plan that lacks continuity" and "seemingly insuperable contradictions". These are the terms used in the judgement passed on them by the commentators of theEcumenical Translation of the Bible . It is important to refer to their authority because the consequences of an appraisal of this subject are extremely serious. It has already been seen how a few notions concerning the religious history of the time when the Gospels were written helped to explain certain disconcerting aspects of this literature apparent to the thoughtful reader. It is necessary to continue, however, and ascertain what present-day works can tell us about the sources the Evangelists drew on when writing their texts. It is also interesting to see whether the history of the texts once they were established can help to explain certain aspects they present today.

The problem of sources was approached in a very simplistic fashion at the time of the Fathers of the Church. In the early centuries of Christianity, the only source available was the Gospel that the complete manuscripts provided first, i.e. Matthew's Gospel. The problem of sources only concerned Mark and Luke because John constituted a quite separate case. Saint Augustine held that Mark, who appears second in the traditional order of presentation, had been inspired by Matthew and had summarized his work. He further considered that Luke, who comes third in the manuscripts, had used data from both; his prologue suggests this, and has already been discussed.

The experts in exegesis at this period were as able as we are to estimate the degree of corroboration between the texts and find a large number of verses common to two or three synoptics. Today, the commentators ofthe Ecumenical Translation of the Bible provide the following figures:

verses common to all three synoptics -------------- 330
verses common to Mark and Matthew ------------ 178
verses common to Mark and Luke ----------------100
verses common to Matthew and Luke ------------ 230

The verses unique to each of the first three Gospels are as follows: Matthew 330, Mark 53, and Luke 500.

From the Fathers of the Church until the end of the Eighteenth century A.D., one and a half millenia passed without any new problems being raised on the sources of the evangelists: people continued to follow tradition. It was not until modem times that it was realized, on the basis of these data, how each evangelist had taken material found in the others and compiled his own specific narration guided by his own personal views. Great weight was attached to actual collection of material for the narration. It came from the oral traditions of the communities from which it originated on the one hand, and from a common written Aramaic source that has not been rediscovered on the other. This written source could have formed a compact mass or have been composed of many fragments of different narrations used by each evangelist to construct his own original work.

More intensive studies in circa the last hundred years have led to theories which are more detailed and in time will become even more complicated. The first of the modem theories is the so-called 'Holtzmann Two Sources Theory', (1863). O. Culmann and the Ecumenical Translation explain that, according to this theory, Matthew and Luke may have been inspired by Mark on the one hand and on the other by a common document which has since been lost. The first two moreover each had his own sources. This leads to the following diagram:

Document MarkCommon

Culmann criticises the above on the following points:

1. Mark's work, used by both Luke and Matthew, was probably not the author's Gospel but an earlier version.

2. The diagram does not lay enough emphasis on the oral tradition. This appears to be of paramount importance because it alone preserved Jesus's words and the descriptions of his mission during a period of thirty or forty years, as each of the Evangelists was only the spokesman for the Christian community which wrote down the oral tradition.

This is how it is possible to conclude that the Gospels we possess today are a reflection of what the early Christian communities knew of Jesus's life and ministry. They also mirror their beliefs and theological ideas, of which the evangelists were the spokesmen.

The latest studies in textual criticism on the sources of the Gospels have clearly shown an even more complicated formation process of the texts. A book by Fathers Benoit and Boismard, both professors at the Biblical School of Jerusalem (1972-1973), called theSynopsis of the Four Gospels (Synopse des quatres Evangiles) stresses the evolution of the text in stages parallel to the evolution of the tradition. This implies the conquences set out by Father Benoit in his introduction to Father Boismard's part of the work. He presents them in the following terms:

"(. .) the wording and form of description that result from a long evolution of tradition are not as authentic as in the original. some readers of this work will perhaps be surprised or embarrassed to learn that certain of Jesus's sayings, parables, or predictions of His destiny were not expressed in the way we read them today, but were altered and adapted by those who transmitted them to us. This may come as a source of amazement and even scandal to those not used to this kind of historical investigation."

The alterations and adaptations to the texts made by those transmitting them to us were done in a way that Father Boismard explains by means of a highly complex diagram. It is a development of the so-called 'Two Sources Theory', and is the product of examination and comparison of the texts which it is not possible to summarize here. Those readers who are interested in obtaining further details should consult the original work published by Les Editions du Cerf, Paris.

Four basic documents-A, B, C and Q-represent the original sources of the Gospels (see general diagram). Page 76.

Document A comes from a Judeo-Christian source. Matthew and Mark were inspired by it.
Document B is a reinterpretation of document A, for use in Pagan-cum-Christian churches: all the evangelists were inspired by it except Matthew.
Document C inspired Mark, Luke and John.
Document Q constitutes the majority of sources common to Matthew and Luke; it is the , Common Document' in the 'Two Sources' theory referred to earlier.

None of these basic documents led to the production of the definitive texts we know today. Between them and the final version lay the intermediate versions: Intermediate Matthew, Intermediate Mark, Intermediate Luke and Intermediate John. These four intermediate documents were to lead to the final versions of the four Gospels, as well as to inspire the final corresponding versions of other Gospels. One only has to consult the diagram to see the intricate relationships the author has revealed.

The results of this scriptural research are of great importance. They show how the Gospel texts not only have a history (to be discussed later) but also a 'pre-history', to use Father Boismard's expression. What is meant is that before the final versions appeared, they underwent alterations at the Intermediate Document stage. Thus it is possible to explain, for example, how a well-known story from Jesus's life, such as the miracle catch of fish, is shown in Luke to be an event that happened during His life, and in John to be one of His appearances after His Resurrection.

The conclusion to be drawn from the above is that when we read the Gospel, we can no longer be at all sure that we are reading Jesus's word. Father Benoit addresses himself to the readers of the Gospel by warning them and giving them the following compensation: "If the reader is obliged in more than one case to give up the notion of hearing Jesus's voice directly, he still hears the voice of the Church and he relies upon it as the divinely appointed interpreter of the Master who long ago spoke to us on earth and who now speaks to us in His glory".

How can one reconcile this formal statement of the inauthenticity of certain texts with the phrase used in the dogmatic constitution on Divine Revelation by the Second Vatican Council assuring us to the contrary, i.e. the faithful transmission of Jesus's words: "These four Gospels, which it (the Church) unhesitatingly confirms are historically authentic, faithfully transmit what Jesus, Son of God, actually did and taught during his life among men for their eternal salvation, until the day when he was taken up into the heavens"?

It is quite clear that the work of the Biblical School of Jerusalem flatly contradicts the Council's declaration.

M. E. BOISMARD
SYNOPSIS OF THE FOUR GOSPELS[1]
GENERAL DIAGRAM
(1) Synopse des quatre Evangiles

HISTORY OF THE TEXTS

One would be mistaken in thinking that once the Gospels were written they constituted the basic Scriptures of the newly born Christianity and that people referred to them the same way they referred to the Old Testament. At that time, the foremost authority was the oral tradition as a vehicle for Jesus's words and the teachings of the apostles. The first writings to circulate were Paul's letters and they occupied a prevalent position long before the Gospels. They were, after all, written several decades earlier.

It has already been shown, that contrary to what certain commentators are still writing today, before 140 A.D. there was no witness to the knowledge that a collection of Gospel writings existed. It was not until circa 170 A.D. that the four Gospels acquired the status of canonic literature.

In the early days of Christianity, many writings on Jesus were in circulation. They were not subsequently retained as being worthy of authenticity and the Church ordered them to be hidden, hence their name 'Apocrypha'. Some of the texts of these works have been well preserved because they "benefitted from the fact that they were generally valued", to quote the Ecumenical Translation. The same was true for the Letter of Barnabas, but unfortunately others were "more brutally thrust aside" and only fragments of them remain. They were considered to be the messengers of error and were removed from the sight of the faithful. Works such as the Gospels of the Nazarenes, the Gospels of the Hebrews and the Gospels of the Egyptians, known through quotations taken from the Fathers of the Church, were nevertheless fairly closely related to the canonic Gospels. The same holds good for Thomas's Gospel and Barnabas's Gospel.

Some of these apocryphal writings contain imaginary details, the product of popular fantasy. Authors of works on the Apocrypha also quote with obvious satisfaction passages which are literally ridiculous. Passages such as these are however to be found inall the Gospels. One has only to think of the imaginary description of events that Matthew claims took place at Jesus's death. It is possible to find passages lacking seriousness in all the early writings of Christianity: One must be honest enough to admit this.

The abundance of literature concerning Jesus led the Church to make certain excisions while the latter was in the process of becoming organized. Perhaps a hundred Gospels were suppressed. Only four were retained and put on the official list of neo-Testament writings making up what is called the 'Canon'.

In the middle of the Second century A.D., Marcion of Sinope put heavy pressure on the ecclesiastic authorities to take a stand on this. He was an ardent enemy of the Jews and at that time rejected the whole of the Old Testament and everything in writings produced after Jesus that seemed to him too close to the Old Testament or to come from the Judeo-Christian tradition. Marcion only acknowledged the value of Luke's Gospel because, he believed Luke to be the spokesman of Paul and his writings.

The Church declared Marcion a heretic and put into its canon all the Letters of Paul, but included the other Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. They also added several other works such as the Acts of the Apostles. The official list nevertheless varies with time during the first centuries of Christianity. For a while, works that were later considered not to be valid (i.e. Apocrypha) figured in it, while other works contained in today's New Testament Canon were excluded from it at this time. These hesitations lasted until the Councils of Hippo Regius in 393 and Carthage in 397. The four Gospels always figured in it however.

One may join Father Boismard in regretting the disappearance of a vast quantity of literature declared apocryphal by the Church although it was of historical interest. The above author indeed gives it a place in hisSynopsis of the Four Gospels alongside that of the official Gospels. He notes that these books still existed in libraries near the end of the Fourth century A.D.

This was the century that saw things put into serious order. The oldest manuscripts of the Gospels date from this period. Documents prior to this, i.e. papyri from the Third century A.D. and one possibly dating from the Second, only transmit fragments to us. The two oldest parchment manuscripts are Greek, Fourth century A.D. They are theCodex Vaticanus , preserved in the Vatican Library and whose place of discovery is unknown, and the Codex Sinaiticus, which was discovered on Mount Sinai and is now preserved in the British Museum, London. The second contains two apocryphal works.

According to the Ecumenical Translation, two hundred and fifty other known parchments exist throughout the world, the last of these being from the Eleventh century A.D. "Not all the copies of the New Testament that have come down to us are identical" however. "On the contrary, it is possible to distinguish differences of varying degrees of importance between them, but however important they may be, there is always a large number of them. Some of these only concern differences of grammatical detail, vocabulary or word order. Elsewhere however, differences between manuscripts can be seen which affect the meaning of whole passages". If one wishes to see the extent of textual differences, one only has to glance through theNovum Testamentum Graece. [33] This work contains a so-called 'middle-of-the-road' Greek text. It is a text of synthesis with notes containing all the variations found in the different versions.

The authenticity of a text, and of even the most venerable manuscript, is always open to debate. TheCodex Vaticanus is a good example of this. The facsimile reproductions edited by the Vatican City, 1965, contains an accompanying note from its editors informing us that "several centuries after it was copied (believed to have been in circa the Tenth or Eleventh century), a scribe inked over all the letters except those he thought were a mistake". There are passages in the text where the original letters in light brown still show through, contrasting visibly with the rest of the text which is in dark brown. There is no indication that it was a faithful restoration. The note states moreover that "the different hands that corrected and annotated the manuscript over the centuries have not yet been definitively discerned; a certain number of corrections were undoubtedly made when the text was inked over." In all the religious manuals the text is presented as a Fourth century copy. One has to go to sources at the Vatican to discover that various hands may have altered the text centuries later.

One might reply that other texts may be used for comparison, but how does one choose between variations that change the meaning? It is a well known fact that a very old scribe's correction can lead to the definitive reproduction of the corrected text. We shall see further on how a single word in a passage from John concerning the Paraclete radically alters its meaning and completely changes its sense when viewed from a theological point of view.

O. Culmann, in his book,The New Testament , writes the following on the subject of variations:

"Sometimes the latter are the result of inadvertant flaws: the copier misses a word out, or conversely writes it twice, or a whole section of a sentence is carelessly omitted because in the manuscript to be copied it appeared between two identical words. Sometimes it is a matter of deliberate corrections, either the copier has taken the liberty of correcting the text according to his own ideas or he has tried to bring it into line with a parallel text in a more or less skilful attempt to reduce the number of discrepancies. As, little by little, the New Testament writings broke away from the rest of early Christian literature, and came to be regarded as Holy Scripture, so the copiers became more and more hesitant about taking the same liberties as their predecessors: they thought they were copying the authentic text, but in fact wrote down the variations. Finally, a copier sometimes wrote annotations in the margin to explain an obscure passage. The following copier, thinking that the sentence he found in the margin had been left out of the passage by his predecessor, thought it necessary to include the margin notes in the text. This process often made the new text even more obscure."

The scribes of some manuscripts sometimes took exceedingly great liberties with the texts. This is the case of one of the most venerable manuscripts after the two referred to above, the Sixth centuryCodex Bezae Cantabrigiensis . The scribe probably noticed the difference between Luke's and Matthew's genealogy of Jesus, so he put Matthew's genealogy into his copy of Luke, but as the second contained fewer names than the first, he padded it out with extra names (without balancing them up).

Is it possible to say that the Latin translations, such as Saint Jerome's Sixth century Vulgate, or older translations (Vetus Itala ), or Syriac and Coptic translations are any more faithful than the basic Greek manuscripts? They might have been made from manuscripts older than the ones referred to above and subsequently lost to the present day. We just do not know.

It has been possible to group the bulk of these versions into families all bearing a certain number of common traits. According to O. Culmann, one can define:
--a so-called Syrian text, whose constitution could have led to the majority of the oldest Greek manuscripts; this text was widely disseminated throughout Europe from the Sixteenth century A.D. onwards thanks to printing. the specialists say that it is probably the worst text.
--a so-called Western text, with old Latin versions and theCodex Bezae Cantabrigiensis which is in both Greek and Latin; according to the Ecumenical Translation, one of its characteristics is a definite tendency to provide explanations, paraphrases, inaccurate data and 'harmonizations'.
--the so-called Neutral text, containing theCodex Vaticanus and theCodex Sinaiticus , is said to have a fairly high level of purity; modern editions of the New Testament readily follow it, although it too has its flaws (Ecumenical Translation).

All that modern textual criticism can do in this respect is to try and reconstitute "a text which has the most likelihood of coming near to the original. In any case, there can be no hope of going back to the original text itself." (Ecumenical Translation)

The Gospels and Modern Science: The General Genealogies of Jesus.

The Gospels contain very few passages which give rise to a confrontation with modern scientific data.

Firstly however, there are many descriptions referring to miracles which hardly lend themselves to scientific comment. The miracles concern people-the healing of the sick (the insane, blind, paralytic ; the healing of lepers, resurrection of Lazarus) as well as the purely material phenomena that lie outside the laws of nature (the description of Jesus walking on water that held him up, the changing of the water into wine). Sometimes a natural phenomenom is seen from an unusual angle by virtue of the fact that the time element is very short: the immediate calming of the storm, the instantaneous withering of the fig tree, the miracle catch of fish, as if all the fish in the sea had come together at exactly the place where the nets were cast.

God intervenes in His Omnipotent Power in all these episodes. One need not be surprised by what He is able to achieve; by human standards it is stupendous, but for Him it is not. This does not at all mean that a believer should forget science. A belief in divine miracles and in science is quite compatible: one is on a divine scale, the other on a human one.

Personally, I am very willing to believe that Jesus cured a leper, but I cannot accept the fact that a text is declared authentic and inspired by God when I read that only twenty generations existed between the first man and Abraham. Luke says this in his Gospel (3, 23-28). We shall see in a moment the reasons that show why Luke's text, like the Old Testament text on the same theme, is quite simply a product of human imagination.

The Gospels (like the Qur'an) give us the same description of Jesus's biological origins. The formation of Jesus in the maternal uterus occurred in circumstances which lay outside the laws of nature common to all human beings. The ovule produced by the mother's ovary did not need to join with a spermatozoon, which should have come from his father, to form the embryo and hence a viable infant. The phenomenon of the birth of a normal individual without the fertilizing action of the male is called 'parthenogenesis'. In the animal kingdom, parthenogenesis can be observed under certain conditions. This is true for various insects, certain invertebrates and, very occasionally, a select breed of bird. By way of experiment, it has been possible, for example, in certain mammals (female rabbits), to obtain the beginnings of a development of the ovule into an embryo at an extremely rudimentary stage without any intervention of spermatozoon. It was not possible to go any further however and an example of complete parthenogenesis, whether experimental or natural, is unknown. Jesus is an unique case. Mary was a virgin mother. She preserved her virginity and did not have any children apart from Jesus. Jesus is a biological exception.[34]

THE GENEALOGIES OF JESUS.

The two genealogies contained in Matthew's and Luke's Gospels give rise to problems of verisimilitude, and conformity with scientific data, and hence authenticity. These problems are a source of great embarrassment to Christian commentators because the latter refuse to see in them what is very obviously the product of human imagination. The authors of the Sacerdotal text of Genesis, Sixth century B.C., had already been inspired by imagination for their genealogies of the first men. It again inspired Matthew and Luke for the data they did not take from the Old Testament.

One must straight away note that the male genealogies have absolutely no relevance to Jesus. Were one to give a genealogy to Mary's only son, who was without a biological father, it would have to be the genealogy of his mother Mary.

Here is the text of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, 1952:

The genealogy according to Matthew is at the beginning of his Gospel:

Abraham Isaac Jacob Judah Perez Hezron Ram Amminadab Nahshon Salmon Boaz Obed Jesse David Solomon Rehoboam Abijah Asa Jehoshaphat Joram Uzziah Jotham Ahaz Hezekiah Manasseh Amos Josiah at the time of the After the Jechoniah Shealtiel Zerubbabel Abiud Eliakim Azor Zadok Achim Eliud Eleazar Matthan Jacob

was the father of was the father of was the father of was the father of was the father of was the father of was the father of was the father of was the father of was the father of was the father of was the father of was the father of was the father of was the father of was the father of was the father of was the father of was the father of was the father of was the father of was the father of was the father of was the father of was the father of was the father of was the father of deportation to Babylon. deportation to Babylon: was the father of was the father of was the father of was the father of was the father of was the father of was the father of was the father of was the father of was the father of was the father of was the father of of whom Jesus was born, who was called Christ

Isaac Jacob Judah and his brothers Perez and Zerah by Tamar Hezron Ram Amminadab Nahshon Salmon Boaz by Rahab Obed by Ruth Jesse David the king Solomon by the wife of Uriah Rehoboam Abijah Asa Jehoshaphat Joram Uzziah Jotham Ahaz Hezekiah Manasseh Amos Josiah Jechoniah and his brothers Shealtiel Zerubbabel Abiud Eliakim Azor Zadok Achim Eliud Eleazar Matthan Jacob Joseph the husband of Mary

"THE BOOK OF THE GENEALOGY OF JESUS CHRIST, THE SON OF DAVID, THE SON OF ABRAHAM

So all the generations from Abraham to David were fourteen generations, and from David to the deportation to Babylon fourteen generations, and from the deportation to Babylon to the Christ fourteen generations". (Matthew, I, 1-17)

The genealogy given by Luke (3, 23-38) is different from Matthew. The text reproduced here is from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible:

"Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai, the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda, the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri, the sOn of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er, the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim, the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David, the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Sala, the son of Nahshon, the son of Amminadab, the son of Admin, the son of Ami, the SOD of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan, the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God."

The genealogies appear more clearly when presented in two tables, one showing the genealogy before David and the other after him.