SECTION I
CHAPTER 10  Background of the gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John.

Matthew

     Almost all scholars today agree that Matthew used Mark as one of his
text references in composing his gospel for his community. Yet, Matthew
obviously disagreed with Mark on important doctrinal issues: For example,
whereas Mark emphasized how Jesus had spoken in parables to keep their
meaning hidden and secret--(see Mark 4:10-12) Matthew stresses how Jesus'
message had been made open and clear to all. (see Matt. 13:10-7). Unlike
Mark, who sometimes portrays Jesus as employing a magic word or "spat"
to effect his cures, Matthew portrays Jesus as a more powerful figure who
can cure on command. (This is discussed in more detail in Section II,
Chapter 5).

  The different communities in which they lived probably explains some of
the characteristics the gospel writers wished to emphasize about Jesus:
While Mark portrays Jesus as a loyal citizen of Rome, Matthew emphasizes
Jesus as the strong willed Messiah, who chooses NOT to resort to physical
violence. Thus, when Jesus is arrested at Gethsemane, in Matthew's gospel
Jesus speaks of the folly of using violence for resisting arrest as: "all
who take the sword will perish by the sword."  In Matthew's Christian
community, this saying would have been clearly understood to have been a
reference to those Jerusalem Christians who took up arms and joined the
Jewish revolt, only to perish with the Jews when the Romans destroyed
Jerusalem.(Brandon, TRIAL OF JESUS)

Matthew's Jesus Originally Sent ONLY to "the Jews"

   Matthew differs from the other gospel writers in portraying Jesus as
being originally sent by God on earth EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE JEWS!

For example:

  * In Matthew 10:5-6, after Jesus chose his disciples, he commanded them to:

   "Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans
   enter ye not.  But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
  (Matthew 10:5-6). (Note, the other three gospels do not mention this.)

  *When a Canaanite woman approaches Jesus to heal her daughter who is
possessed by a devil, Jesus replies,

  "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
  (Matthew 15:24), and again "It is not meet to take the children's [ie
  the Jews'] bread, and to cast it to dogs [non-Jews]" (Matthew 15:26)

 Jesus agrees to heal the woman's daughter after she humbly points out,

 "Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their
  master's table." (Matthew 15:27)

  It was AFTER Jesus was rejected, that disciples were commanded to
preach to ALL peoples.  According to Matthew 28:19, the disciples were
then urged to preach to all nations:

  "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name
  of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." (Matthew 28:19)

(Note: Some scholars believe the difference in tone and style of this passage 
makes it possible for this to have been a later interpolation by some Christian
editor. According to Acts 2:38, the early Christian baptismal formula was
"in the name of Jesus the Messiah".  Also, when Eusebius (third century C.E.),
quoted this Matthean verse he wrote "make disciples of all nations in my name."
(Randel Helms, "Resurrection Fictions", FREE INQUIRY, (Fall 1981, Vol 1 No 4
p 39))

  Because Matthew so strongly emphasized that Jesus' ORIGINAL message
was meant EXCLUSIVELY for the Jews, some scholars have speculated that
Matthew himself "may" have come from a Jewish background, (or at least
targeted his work for a community of Jewish Christians.) This would explain 
the emphasis Matthew places on the Jews as the original Chosen People of God.

   Matthew's doctrine of Jesus being spent originally for the Jews is in
accordance with the historical fact that Jesus ONLY personally preached to
the Jews during his lifetime on earth--ie he did not visit Athens, Rome, or
any other city outside the general Palestine area. (Mormons believe that
Jesus DID visit America after his crucifixion.  For a discussion on Mormonism,
see Section IX, Chapter 2).

Jesus' Renunciation of His Fellow Jews

    Of all the gospel writers, Matthew presents the most dramatic renunciation
of Jesus by the Jews.  It has been a well-observed fact that frequently NEW
converts to a religion react violently against their old beliefs--and if
Matthew was originally Jewish, then this could explain some of his hostility
towards the Jews.

   Yet, Matthew was no doubt affected by the recent devastation of Jerusalem
at the hands of the Romans in 69-70 C.E.. The Jewish community experienced
obvious ANGUISH and SUFFERING from the fact that God had not come to their
assistance. Matthew believed he knew the reason WHY:  The fall of Jerusalem
and the suffering experienced by Jews was divine punishment for their not
accepting Jesus as the Messiah.

   To Matthew, the sins of the Jews MUST have been truly terrible to have
DESERVED such a fate!-- That is, Matthew felt the Jews must have somehow
sinned against God for Him to have NOT come to their rescue.--Thus when
Matthew read Mark's account which  portrayed the Jews (and not the Romans)
as responsible for Jesus' death, Matthew believed he had hit upon the answer.

  Following in Mark's steps, Matthew presented the Romans as entirely
innocent of Jesus' execution--with the FULL blame falling on the shoulders
of the Jews. First, in presenting Pilate's innocence, Matthew showed that
Pilate believed that he must cave in to the Jewish mob's demand to crucify
Jesus, or else face a riot. Matthew had Pilate perform the symbolic act of
washing his hands  to emphasize his lack of involvement in Jesus' death
(a Jewish custom by the way, and NOT a Roman one.)(Brandon, TRIAL OF JESUS,
p 115). After Pilate washed his hands in the water before the crowds, the
Jews reportedly responded:

  "'His blood be on us and on our children!"

  None of the other gospel accounts has this condemnation on FUTURE Jewish
generations:   To Matthew, these words sealed their doom and thus explained
why the Jews were suffering from the devastation of Jerusalem.

  But Matthew surely also meant for the passage to explain RECENT events
and not to JUSTIFY ANOTHER two thousand years of FUTURE persecution to
come, now at the hands of Christian groups wanting revenge against those
who were responsible for killing the son of God. As Professor Brandon so
eloquently summed up Matthew's legacy to the Jews:

"... he [Matthew] little knew, when he represented them as eagerly
  shouting 'His blood be on us, and on our children!', what a
  terrible legacy he was thus imposing upon subsequent  generations ...
  For those fierce words came to be enshrined in the sacred scriptures
  of the Christian Church, where they were seen as the self-confession
  of the Jews to the murder of Christ.  In the succeeding centuries, down
  to this present age, those words have inspired hatred for the Jews and
  justified their cruelest persecutions." (Ibid).

Matthew's Usage of Prophecies from the Septuagint.

  In his letter to the Romans (see Romans 15:3-4,16:25-6), Paul wrote how
the prophetic writings of the Old Testament were written down to clarify
facts for Christians about Jesus.  Thus, even around 50 C.E. (ie when
many scholars believe Paul wrote this letter, Christians believed that
Old Testament stories could be ALLEGORICALLY interpreted as a prediction
of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

   As the Christian communities used the Greek translation of the Old
Testament (ie the Septuagint) for their religious services, it is this
version that was typically read and analyzed for prophecies regarding
the coming Messiah. Translation differences and outright interpolations
at times created discrepancies between the Septuagint version and the
original hebrew version.

  For example, in one case, a Christian editor of the Septuagint altered
Psalm 96 (which states "The Lord reigns" ) to read "The lord reigns from
the tree"--ie referencing the cross of Jesus.  The early Christian father
Justin wrote how it was generally believed that this did NOT result from
a mistake/addition in the CHRISTIAN version of the Septuagint--but that
it was instead the Jews who had altered the text by OMMITTING these words
in their version of the Bible. (Justin, DIALOGUE WITH TRYPHO 73:1; quoted
from Jaroslav Pelikan's JESUS THROUGH THE CENTURIES--His Place in the
History of Culture Yale University Press , 1985, p 27). The discovery of
older texts has shown that Justin was not correct in this assessment.

   The author of the gospel of Matthew appears to have studied the
Old Testament extensively for "predictions" of Jesus. Matthew wrote his
entire gospel around "proofs" that Jesus' life had been foretold by the
prophets of the Old Testament--Hence, Matthew uses the phrase, "that it may
be fulfilled" repeatedly throughout his gospel.

  For example, when the prophet Hosea wrote of God that "When Israel was
a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son" (Hosea 11:1),
this was interpreted by Matthew's Christian community as a prediction
of the flight of Jesus' and his family to Egypt--to escape King Herod's
decree of killing Jewish babies.  Likewise, Jeremiah 31:15 (Rachel weeping
for her children) was interpreted by Matthew to prophecise  Herod's
slaughter of the innocents. The Old Testament prophecies, which
pointed to a future king of Jerusalem who would reunite the kingdoms of
Judah and Israel, were also interpreted to be a prophecy of Christ.

Was Mary's Virgin Birth Foretold in the Old Testament Prophecies?

  One of the most controversial passages that Matthew uses in this way,
is the Old Testament prediction that Jesus would be "born of a virgin."
For, when Joseph is told by the angel that Mary will conceive Jesus through
the Holy Ghost, Matthew writes:

  "All this is come to pass, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by
  the Lord through the prophet, saying, Behold the virgin shall be with child,
  and shall bring forth a son. And they shall call his name Immanuel; which is,
  being interpreted, God is with us" (Matthew 1:22-23)

  The reference is to Isaiah 7:14, where the prophet Isaiah is addressing
Ahaz, the king of Judah, who is being attacked by the two kings of Israel
and Syria. Isaiah assures King Ahaz that he has nothing to worry about, and
that:

  "A young woman (translated 'virgin' ?) is with child, and she has borne
  a son, and will call him Immanuel.  By the time that he has learnt to reject
  evil and  choose good, he will be eating curds and honey; before that child
  has learnt to reject evil and choose good, desolation will come upon the
  land before whose two kings you cower now (Isaiah 7:14-16 NEB)

  In the original Hebrew text, the term used is 'ahmah' which means "young
woman".  The term has a connotation of meaning a young woman eligible for
marriage, but does not necessarily imply a virgin.  The Septuagint version
of the New Testament translated the Hebrew term 'ahmah' into the Greek word
'parthenos' which DOES imply a "virgin".  (The concept of a "virgin"
impregnated by Greek gods was a common theme in many of the ancient Greek
myths.--See Section II Chapter 1 on Birth Stories of Jesus Christ)

  Other technical difficulties with the passage have arisen:  The hebrew verb 
"conceive" is vague regarding whether it applies to the future ("will 
conceive") or the present ("has conceived"). The Hebrew Scripture translation 
prepared by the Jewish Publication Society reads that "a young woman has 
conceived". (James L. Mays, general editor, HARPER'S BIBLE COMMENTARY, Harper 
& Row, 1988, p 556)

  Some texts (such as the standard Hebrew (Massoretic) text and the
Septuagint) refer to "THE" woman as opposed to "A" woman. This has led some
scholars to believe that Isaiah had some specific woman in mind-- whose
identity was known to him.  Even in the Septuagint version, there is no
reference to any supernatural occurrence when reading this passage. Instead,
the passage, when taken in its own context, appears merely to refer to some
woman-- who is NOW a virgin, but will get married, conceive, and have a
child. (GA Wells, WHO WAS JESUS, Open Court, 1989, p 68 citing RE Brown,
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN (Anchor Bible Series), 1966; quoted from the
reprint of 1971, London: G. Chapman, vol. 1, pp. xxxiv-xxxvi, xciii, c;
vol.2, pp. 969-72.)

   Isaiah 7:14 was NOT one of the verses used by apocalyptic Jews in
predicting the messiah. (Friedman, WHO WROTE THE BIBLE, p 69) Instead,
ancient Jews interpreted this verse in Isaiah as a short-term prophecy
that had historically already been fulfilled--For the northern kingdom of
Israel had indeed been conquered by the Assyrians, some thirteen years after
the referenced attack on Judah under its King Ahaz.

   Some recent scholarly versions of the Bible (mainly the RSV and the NEB)
have thus retranslated the Isaiah 7:14 verse to use the term "young woman"
instead of "virgin". (Some American fundamentalists have burned copies of
the RSV Bible because of their anger over this translation.)

  We shall be reviewing some of Matthew's other prophecies in the sections
that examine events in Jesus' live.  In general, it can be said that Matthew 
always carefully documents the source of his prophecies.

  However there is ONE important exception: That is, after Matthew described
how Jesus left Egypt to go to Nazareth, he states this was done:

"to fulfill the words spoken through the prophets: 'He shall be called a
Nazarene'".

  Scholars have vainly searched to find any such reference in the
Old Testament. Possibly Matthew was explaining how Jesus was a man from
Galillee and not from the expected region of Judah. (see Section II,
Chapter 1).


Luke

  The author of the gospel of Luke was, according to tradition, identified
with the Greek physician Luke, who accompanied Paul on his travels. It is
unanimously agreed by all scholars, that the same author wrote both the
books of Luke and Acts. (Footnote:  One of the reasons why some scholars
do not believe that the author is the same Luke who "sends greetings" to
the Christians of Colossae, is that there is never any reference of any
kind to Paul's letters in these books.)

  Luke (like Mark) was written for a gentile Christian community, and makes
few references to the Jewish prophets and scriptures.  Instead, Luke stresses
the universality of Jesus' message to both Jews and Gentiles alike.  Luke
also presents Jesus in the most loving and gentle manner of all four gospel
writers.

  There are clues that Luke is not very close to the details of Palestine, and
projects some of his GREEK ways upon some of the scenes of Jesus. For example,
in Luke's version of the story of the paralytic who could not reach Jesus
because of the great crowds surrounding him, he tells how the man's friends,

  "...went upon the housetop, and let him down through the tiling with his
  couch into the midst before Jesus." (Luke 5:19).

  According to Manfred Barthel in his book WHAT THE BIBLE REALLY SAYS, on
this scene:

  "Houses with tile roofs were common enough in Athens and Rome, but houses
  in Galilee were simple, one-room structures with a thatch of reeds and
  hemps laid over the  rafters." (Manfred, Barthel, WHAT THE BIBLE REALLY
  SAYS, translated and adapted by Mark Howson, Bell Publishing co., 1980,
  P 338)

   In the story of the Capernaum woman who washes Jesus' feet, the Greek
text of Luke states literally that she "stood at his feet behind him",
while Jesus ate.  To visualize this, the reader must picture Jesus not
sitting in a chair--but reclining on a couch, Greek-style, with his head
towards the banquet table, and his legs stretched out in back. (Ibid)

   In describing the birth of John the Baptist, Luke states that some of
the baby's relatives suggested that he be named after his father, Zacharias.
This, again would seem unlikely--because Jewish tradition holds that a family
who names their child after a LIVING relative, would bring on bad luck.

  In the same scene, the father then asks for a writing table--(he had earlier
been struck dumb by an angel) and writes that the child's name shall be John
(see Luke 1:63).  This appears to have been another interjection of Luke's
background on the biblical narrative.  For while wax tablets were common in
Greek households, they were  expensive and rare in Palestine. (Ibid)

John

  The gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are sometimes called the synoptic
gospels, meaning they were written about the "same time" as Jesus. Since the
development of the critical study of the New Testament, scholars have recognized
that the gospel of John is of a different style than the other three gospels of
Matthew, Mark, and Luke. (As earlier noted, most scholars believe that the
gospel writers Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source text for their gospels--
and this explains why there are so many SHARED verses and stories in Mark,
Matthew, and Luke).

  There are major differences in chronological events between the gospel of
John and the Synoptic Gospels:

  *John represents Jesus' ministry as lasting almost three years; whereas
the Synoptics Jesus ministry lasts only from six to eight months.

  *Per John, Jesus made several trips to Jerusalem, and "purged" the Temple
on his first visit; According to the Synoptics' version, Jesus visited
Jerusalem only once--whereupon he purged the Temple, and thereafter was
arrested and crucified-- only a few days later.

  *Per John, Jesus ate a fellowship meal with his apostles on Thursday
evening and was crucified on Friday, THE DAY BEFORE PASSOVER (as the symbolic
sacrificial lamb); According to the Synoptic gospels, Jesus participated
in the Passover meal with his apostles on Thursday and was crucified on
Friday, THE DAY OF PASSOVER.

   The author of John writes more mystically and in symbolic terms than
the other gospel writers. There is no scene of Jesus' baptism by John--only
a vague reference to it. Peter, James, and John (who play a very prominent
role in the synoptic gospels) are relegated to minor roles in John's gospel.
Instead, John tells of other disciples who are not ever mentioned in the
 other three gospels--Philip, Nathaniel, Nicodemus, and the "beloved disciple".
(The discovery of the gnostic GOSPEL OF PHILLIP at Nag Hammadi, shows the
importance of this disciple by gnostic Christians.)

   The character of Jesus in the gospel of John does not use parables,
or debate Jewish law. Also absent are the great moral and ethical teachings
of Jesus ranging from the sermons to the multitudes --to even the rule to
love one's neighbor as ourself.

  Instead, Jesus' miracles are portrayed as symbolizing greater cosmic themes.
(as opposed again to moral teachings). Only seven miracles--referred to as
"signs" --are described.  In each of these scenes, deeper spiritual truths
underlie the miracle itself.  Therefore when Jesus miraculously changes water
into wine at Cana, this symbolizes how men's lives will likewise be transformed
and enriched by obeying his teachings. When a blind man is cured, this
is compared to seeing and knowing the truth. Jesus' miracle of providing
bread in the wilderness is seen as symbolic of God's provision of manna to
the Jews when they wandered in the wilderness after the Exodus. When Lazarus
is raised from the dead, there are strong symbolic similarities to Jesus'
own death and resurrection.

   In the synoptic gospels, Jesus is the bringer or initiator of the Kingdom
of God.  In John, Jesus "reveals" God and speaks of eternal life. Whereas
the synoptic gospels do not refer to Jesus' existence BEFORE his birth on
earth--John's Jesus is portrayed from the start, as a divine being, who
existed since the beginning of the world as one godhead in a Trinity.

  The opening to the gospel of John essentially rewrites the version that
appears in Genesis, stating that "In the Beginning was the Logos, and the Logos
was with God, and the Logos was God.  He was in the beginning with God;
and through him were all things made" (John (1:1-3)

  This divine being descends from the cosmos to earth and becomes flesh
(ie in the form of Jesus) in order to divulge the knowledge on how to
become children of God to those who would receive him.  (John 1:10- 12,14)
Because only the Son has known the Father, it is only THROUGH the Son,
that one can come to have knowledge of the FATHER (John 8:19; John 14:6)
Likewise, he who rejects the Son is guilty of also rejecting the Father
and thus earns "the wrath of God" (John 3:36)

  The Jews are portrayed as fools who try to interpret Jesus' answers LITERALLY,
or physically, instead of SPIRITUALLY.  They constantly ask Jesus, "Where are
you from?" and "where are you going?" But their poor heads just can't understand
Jesus' divinity.  They think he is from Nazareth (see John 7:27,40-42,52) or
else they admit with irony that they do not know where Jesus comes from--"We
know that God has spoken to Moses, but as for this man, we do not know where
he comes from". (John 9:29) Jesus tells them: "You are from below, I am from
above; you are of this cosmos, I am not of this cosmos". (John 8:23) But they
still cannot understand.

  Likewise, when Jesus tells Nicodemus that unless one is born again he cannot
see the Kingdom of God, Nicodemus cannot comprehend, and comically asks,
"How can a man be born when he is old?  Can he enter his mother's womb and be
born?" (John 3:4).  When the woman at the well is offered "living water"
by Jesus she asks "I have nothing to draw with, and the well is deep.  Where
do you get that living water?" (John 4:11).  When Jesus states that Abraham
knew of his coming, the Jews angrily reply, "you are not yet fifty years
old, and you have seen Abraham?"  They had missed Jesus' earlier allusion
to his own pre-existence before Abraham: "Before Abraham was, I am"
(John 8:58).  (Paula Fredriksen, FROM JESUS TO CHRIST, pp 20-21, Yale
University Press, 1988).

  The doctrine of a divine god who descends from the upper realms to
save men is a common theme seen in the Greek mystery religions that predated
Christianity. (See Section IV Chapter 3 on Ancient Greece and the Mystery
Religions). John's imagery and language is viewed by most scholars as
proof that it was heavily influenced by hellenistic thought.  In addition to
the hellenistic references to Logos, and a divine being who descends from
the upper realms to the earth, John's gospel also speaks of a conflict
between light and darkness (or good and evil). The entire gospel contains
other hellenistic terms such as 'the spirit of truth, 'the light of life',
'walking in the darkness', 'children of light' and 'eternal life'. (Ibid)

  According to the gospel of John, the reason why the Jews are unaware
of the upper realm of the one God, is because their father is not the
"true" God--but instead the Devil. This view comes out in John 8:41-45:

  They [the Jews] said to him, 'We are not born of fornication; we have one
  Father, even God.' Jesus said to them, 'If God were your Father, you would
  love me for I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord,
  but he sent me. Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot
  bear to hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and your will is to
  do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has
  nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he
  lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the
  father of lies.  But, because I tell the truth, you do not believe me."

  (Footnote: See Section IV, Chapter 3 which tells how gnostics believed
that the earth was created by a lower god, or Devil.)

   For this reason, John is not concerned to show that Jesus fulfilled
Jewish prophecies regarding his coming. In the gospel of John, the Jews
taunt the fact that the messiah was NEVER prophecised to come from Galilee.
(John seems to be either unaware or unbelieving of the virgin birth stories
in Bethlehem. See John 7:40-42,52) Although there are some remarks about
Moses' witness towards Jesus and that salvation came from the Jews
(John 4:22) for the most part, the FOCUS is on the mystery of a divine
being who came to earth and returned to heaven--NOT on an apocalyptic
messiah who will come again and create a new world order on earth with
Jerusalem at its center.(FROM JESUS TO CHRIST, Paula Fredriksen p 43)

   When Jesus is heralded as a Jewish messiah upon his entry into Jerusalem,
he makes it clear that he does not perceive himself as Jewish.  He regarded
the Law as "their" law (see John 10: 34; John 15:25) Likewise when Jesus is
interrogated by Pilate, he portrays the Jews as the ENEMY when he says
"If my kingship were of this world, my servants would fight that I might not
be handed over to the Jews" (John 18:36) (Paula Fredriksen, Ibid p 25)

  In John, Jesus is portrayed as an awesome, all-powerful  superbeing-- who
never laughs, or even appears to suffer. Unlike the other gospel accounts,
there is NO agony scene in Gethsemane. Even when dying on the cross, he is
in complete control: Unlike the other gospels which show Jesus despairing on
the cross with the words "My God, why have you forsaken me"-- John's account
has Jesus declare at the end "It is finished". (John 19:30).

 (As we shall see in a later section, the view that it was impossible for a
divine being to truly suffer was a common early gnostic Christian view, and
was later declared heretical by the Catholic church.)

Paul

  Paul's letters portray Jesus' nature very differently from what is written
in the synoptic Gospels and Acts. This is significant, because Paul's letters
were most likely composed some thirty to sixty years BEFORE the gospels were
written. To Paul, Jesus is a supernatural being, united with God since the
creation of the universe.  Jesus temporarily stepped out of his godly form
and took upon himself the likeness of a man. Thereupon he "humbled himself"
to die on the cross, as the ultimate sacrifice to atone for the world's sins.
(See Phillippians 2:5-9, Colossians 1:15-16 ).

  In none of his letters does Paul ever mention any of the details of
Jesus' life on earth--his miraculous birth, his lineage from the royal line
of King David, the famous parables and miracles, the betrayal of Jesus by
Judas, etc. (In fact the only time Paul quotes from Jesus, is in the relating
of the sacrament of the Last Supper.)

  Some have questioned whether Paul was even aware of any miracles performed
by Jesus-- Paul makes a statement in his 1 Corinthians epistle, which would
make it seem as if he did not know of these miracles. The general tone of
the epistle's introduction is in mocking the purported great "wisdom of the
wise" which God will "destroy" and "make foolish".  He then bitterly observes
how "the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom". Since the
Gospels are full of signs and miracles, it seems strange that Paul would not
refer to them-- if he had heard of them. (See Section II, Chapter 12)

  Although possibly Paul's congregations did not know (or at least teach) on
the details of the historical Jesus, as we shall see in the next sections,
various traditions on these aspects of Jesus life had evolved among different
early Christian communities by the late first century/early second century
C.E.

  True, all these gospel writings agreed on one basic tenet--that Jesus
had died on the cross and was resurrected after three days.  However, as the
next section will show, the details on this event--along with the other major
events in Jesus' ministry-- are interpreted so very differently by the gospel
writers, that it is literally impossible for scholars to honestly reconcile
them with one another.

  In the next section, we shall attempt to analyze personal events surrounding
the nature of Jesus of Nazareth. We will begin with the miraculous traditions
surrounding his annunciation and birth.