![\"4](\"https:\/\/peteenns.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/4-versions-241x300.jpg\")
Hahaha. Funny meme.<\/p>\n
But seriously. Many of us have been taught to think something along\u00a0these lines, that the Gospels are basically on the same page and any differences are either imagined or inconsequential.<\/p>\n
Maybe. That works for some things. But the problem with that way of thinking is that it\u00a0presumes<\/em> that \u201csaying the same thing\u201d is a prime goal of the Gospels. But there are simply too many differences between them, small and large, for that way of thinking to be convincing.<\/p>\n The Gospels differ because the Gospel authors had\u00a0different\u00a0influences<\/em>\u00a0and different\u00a0agendas<\/em>. The first they didn\u2019t control: they wrote what they knew, based on what they were\u00a0told and perhaps stories floating around orally.<\/p>\n The second they could and did control.\u00a0I think the \u201cnew wineskin\u201d teaching of Jesus is an example.<\/p>\n This story appears in the 3 \u201cSynoptic\u201d Gospels\u2014meaning the 3 that \u201clook similar,\u201d Matthew, Mark, and Luke. (John is off on his own.)\u00a0New Testament scholars generally agree that Mark is actually the oldest of the Gospels, and that Matthew and Luke worked off of\u00a0Mark and freely made adjustments and changes\u00a0in telling their\u00a0own versions of the life of Jesus<\/em>.<\/p>\n Scholars work out the details in all sorts of ways and come up with charts like these\u00a0to remind you how smart they are and how much you need them.<\/p>\n We\u2019re not going to spend our time looking at these charts, even though they really tell us a lot, namely that the question of why the Synoptic Gospels can look so similar and at the same time so apparently haphazardly different is a long and complicated one that learned people spend a lot of time thinking about.<\/p>\n So let\u2019s get back to the \u201cnew wineskin\u201d teaching of Jesus. Here they are in the order in which they were likely written:<\/p>\n Mark 2:22<\/b> And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; otherwise, the wine will burst the skins, and the wine is lost, and so are the skins; but one puts new wine into fresh wineskins.\u201d<\/p>\n Matt. 9:17<\/b> Neither is new wine put into old wineskins; otherwise, the skins burst, and the wine is spilled, and the skins are destroyed; but new wine is put into fresh wineskins, and so both are preserved<\/strong>.\u201d<\/p>\n Luke 5:37-39<\/b>\u00a0And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the new wine will burst the skins and will be spilled, and the skins will be destroyed.\u00a0But new wine must be put into fresh wineskins.\u00a0And no one after drinking old wine desires new wine, but says, \u201cThe old is good.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n These words of Jesus are set in the context of why Jesus\u2019s followers didn\u2019t fast the way John the Baptist\u2019s disciples\u00a0did. Because, Jesus explains, he is the bridegroom at a wedding feast, and as long as he is with them, it is not a time of fasting.<\/p>\n These 3 versions are \u201cmore or less\u201d the same, to be sure. All 3 say that putting new wine in old wineskins is a bad idea, because the new wine (when it ferments) will stretch the old wineskins to the breaking point.<\/p>\n Jesus makes the same point in previous verses about sewing an new patch of cloth onto an old garment. When the new patch shrinks it will rip the old garment.<\/p>\n So, moral of the story: old and new don\u2019t work well together.\u00a0But note how the three are different.<\/p>\n The point of the \u201cnew wineskins\/new patch\u201d thing for Mark is to illustrate how Jesus brings something\u00a0new that can\u2019t be contained in old familiar patterns<\/em>.<\/p>\n Now, many of us would have liked Mark to explain himself more fully, namely\u00a0what exactly<\/em> do the old wineskins\/garments represent here? As it stands, Mark seems to be saying that Judaism\u2019s<\/em> rituals are now being given up because of Jesus.<\/strong> (I think Mark\u00a0is <\/em>saying that:\u00a0<\/em>he\u00a0makes a similar move\u00a0in\u00a07:19 where he\u00a0<\/em>claims that\u00a0Jesus \u201cdeclared all foods clean,\u201d\u00a0which Matthew 15:17 leaves out.)<\/p>\n Whether or not\u00a0breaking with Judaism was\u00a0Mark\u2019s point (who knows, really), you have to admit one could get that impression. So, enter Matthew and Luke who add a clarifying comment.<\/p>\n Matthew adds that by putting new wine in new wineskins where it belongs, the old wineskins are kept from\u00a0breaking, thus preserving the old\u00a0alongside the new.<\/strong><\/p>\n Luke takes it a step further. For him the old wine is in fact quite tasty, so tasty in fact that it is to be preferred<\/em>.<\/strong><\/p>\n What\u2019s the deal, guys?<\/p>\n Mark\u2019s version was apparently troubling to both Matthew and Luke, who did not want to give the impression that Jesus was turning his back on his own Jewish traditions and in effect \u201cstarting a new religion.\u201d They were doing some damage control: \u201cWell, the\u00a0old\u2019s not\u00a0bad<\/em>. In fact, what Jesus wants you to know is that, properly understood, the old is to be preferred.\u201d<\/p>\n The question which naturally comes up is, \u201cSo what did Jesus actually say?\u201d We don\u2019t know. Even though Mark is the oldest Gospel, we still don\u2019t know whether Jesus uttered his\u00a0barebones version, or whether Mark left out all that \u201cold is good\u201d stuff to make\u00a0his\u00a0<\/em>point and Matthew and Luke are actually closer to the original words of Jesus.<\/p>\n Actually, can we even talk of the \u201coriginal?\u201d<\/p>\n We. have. no. idea.<\/p>\n But what we do have\u2014and I find this so absolutely intriguing and amazing\u2014is diversity concerning\u00a0the teachings of\u00a0Jesus at such an early stage in history<\/em>, probably by about 70 CE.<\/p>\n It seems that, right here in black and white, we see that even the earliest followers of Jesus<\/a> were trying to figure out what following Jesus meant vis-a-vis the Judaism out of which the Jesus movement grew. And that process is preserved for us in the pages of the sacred text.<\/p>\n This is an example of what I never grow tired of saying and that has deeply practical and spiritual implications:\u00a0The Bible isn\u2019t an owners manual or set of\u00a0<\/em>instructions.\u00a0<\/i>Rather, the Bible models for us a process of working out and working through what it means to be a follower of Jesus.<\/p>\n That process has not come to an end; each generation, each of us, is called to participate. The Bible tells me so<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n<\/div>\n![\"Synoptic_problem1\"](\"https:\/\/peteenns.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/Synoptic_problem1-230x300.jpg\")
![\"Synoptic_problem3\"](\"https:\/\/peteenns.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/Synoptic_problem3-300x225.jpg\")
<\/p>\nWe have here an inner-biblical debate of sorts, which are hardly few and far between in the Old and New Testaments.<\/h2>\n